Escape from New Vegas

[The_Blue_Rider]

snip of legend

I agree with most things you said there, however i wouldnt be so harsh on Fallout 3, it was a good game and i enjoy both 3 and New Vegas, but for different reasons, 3 is just so atmospheric, while New Vegas is just so awesome

 

[Sewer Rat]

Personally I preferred the visuals in NV, say what you will about the Capital Wasteland, but you can't exactly say it was invigorating to look at. So much grey and brown. New Vegas was very colorful and actually included *gasp* vegetation! And it did this while still feeling like a wasteland. Not to mention the overall story in New Vegas was much better. Yes, it started out slow, but toward the end, it got really good.

Spoiler

I personally had a hard time making my choice as to which faction to support, I was going for a good playthrough, so off course Caesar's legion was out, but that still left me with 3 choices. NCR seemed to support values similar to democracy and a civilized world, however they just seemed far to wide stretched and disorganized to actually lead the wasteland. Mr. House clearly had a vision, and the brains and power to back it up, but he seemed very closed to what was going on around him, how can a man who lived in a tube most of his life truly understand what is best for the wasteland? Not to mention he seemed to support a dictatorship run exclusively by him, and while his intentions may be good, it was hard to think of supporting a dictator of any kind. Then of course there was the Wild Card, Yes Man, a free New Vegas, governed by the people of New Vegas, this was appealing but, would the people of Vegas really be capable of running themselves, or would it just dissolve into anarchy?

This kind of moral dilemma and overall grey decisions really made me feel involved in the game, and made me make a difficult choice, which personally, I love in an RPG, life is not easy, life is not black and white, if a game can avoid that kind of thinking, then it has achieved something brilliant.
But then there is fallout 3's story, where if you were good, you went with the Brotherhood, if you were evil, you went with the Enclave, BUT you ended up doing the same missions anyway because you have to follow the brotherhood to reach the end of the game. This is the kind of black and white choice I hate in an RPG, it all comes down to whether you decide you want to be a dickhead or stalwart savior of the land.
Fallout 3 may have set the formula for the 1st person Fallout Experience, but in my opinion, New Vegas perfected it. I do still enjoy both games for what they are though of course and still have a lot of fun cheating modding in both.
There was one thing that I enjoyed more in Fallout 3 though, and that was 3-Dog, he was a great radio personality, something that cannot be said for Mr. new Vegas.
Thus ends my short rant, take from it what you will.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Well, it's like the case with Morrowind and Oblivion, ain't it? Fallout 3 is the Morrowind, having a fantastic atmosphere and being the better game, but Fallout: NV does what Oblivion did for the TES franchise and brings about some very positive upgrades in terms of gameplay. That said, unlike Morrowind, Fallout 3 was not in such dire need of those changes, so it's a lot easier to go back and enjoy it as the better game

For those of us who've played the old Fallout games, it is Fallout 3 that is Oblivion. It gives us lots of shiny overhauls but in the process it also ripped out many of the things that made Fallout into Fallout and managed to completly miss the mark on mood and theme. NV is more like what Skyrim might be, a step back in the right direction. NV brought Fallout back to the Fallout franchise, putting back many of the things that Fallout 3 had discarded along the way.

 

[Kirosilence]

As a fan of both the old and new Fallout schools (And just coming off finishing Lonesome Road), I really hope Bethesda leaves the fallout franchise in Obsidian's hands. I think they did an amazing job taking the framework that Bethesda laid down and really turning it over to the universe.

 

[Justice4L]

I adore New Vegas, but it pales in comparison to Fallout 3.

 

[Vrach]

Well, it's like the case with Morrowind and Oblivion, ain't it? Fallout 3 is the Morrowind, having a fantastic atmosphere and being the better game, but Fallout: NV does what Oblivion did for the TES franchise and brings about some very positive upgrades in terms of gameplay. That said, unlike Morrowind, Fallout 3 was not in such dire need of those changes, so it's a lot easier to go back and enjoy it as the better game

For those of us who've played the old Fallout games, it is Fallout 3 that is Oblivion. It gives us lots of shiny overhauls but in the process it also ripped out many of the things that made Fallout into Fallout and managed to completly miss the mark on mood and theme. NV is more like what Skyrim might be, a step back in the right direction. NV brought Fallout back to the Fallout franchise, putting back many of the things that Fallout 3 had discarded along the way.

No, that's not really a viable comparison. Morrowind>Oblivion was a direct franchise sequel, done by the same company and everything. The only thing that ties Fallout 3/NV with the old Fallout games is the franchise name, which was bought from it's parent company. I get that you're bitter cause a franchise you liked was turned into something else, but that's a completely different ballpark (and for what it's worth, I completely disagree with you)

 

[Nikolaz72]

Well, it's like the case with Morrowind and Oblivion, ain't it? Fallout 3 is the Morrowind, having a fantastic atmosphere and being the better game, but Fallout: NV does what Oblivion did for the TES franchise and brings about some very positive upgrades in terms of gameplay. That said, unlike Morrowind, Fallout 3 was not in such dire need of those changes, so it's a lot easier to go back and enjoy it as the better game

For those of us who've played the old Fallout games, it is Fallout 3 that is Oblivion. It gives us lots of shiny overhauls but in the process it also ripped out many of the things that made Fallout into Fallout and managed to completly miss the mark on mood and theme. NV is more like what Skyrim might be, a step back in the right direction. NV brought Fallout back to the Fallout franchise, putting back many of the things that Fallout 3 had discarded along the way.

No, that's not really a viable comparison. Morrowind>Oblivion was a direct franchise sequel, done by the same company and everything. The only thing that ties Fallout 3/NV with the old Fallout games is the franchise name, which was bought from it's parent company. I get that you're bitter cause a franchise you liked was turned into something else, but that's a completely different ballpark (and for what it's worth, I completely disagree with you)

You're wrong. He said that NV is closer to Fallout 1/2 in terms of Canon. And im sorry, but it is. In Fallout 3 everything was clear black and white, in 1/2/NV its more like different shades of grey. Also its made by the same company, NV and Fallout 2 that is. While Bethesda is a different company Obsidian is people from Black Isle. So either you just havent read up on it enough or you jumped to a conclusion.

 

[Vrach]

Well, it's like the case with Morrowind and Oblivion, ain't it? Fallout 3 is the Morrowind, having a fantastic atmosphere and being the better game, but Fallout: NV does what Oblivion did for the TES franchise and brings about some very positive upgrades in terms of gameplay. That said, unlike Morrowind, Fallout 3 was not in such dire need of those changes, so it's a lot easier to go back and enjoy it as the better game

For those of us who've played the old Fallout games, it is Fallout 3 that is Oblivion. It gives us lots of shiny overhauls but in the process it also ripped out many of the things that made Fallout into Fallout and managed to completly miss the mark on mood and theme. NV is more like what Skyrim might be, a step back in the right direction. NV brought Fallout back to the Fallout franchise, putting back many of the things that Fallout 3 had discarded along the way.

No, that's not really a viable comparison. Morrowind>Oblivion was a direct franchise sequel, done by the same company and everything. The only thing that ties Fallout 3/NV with the old Fallout games is the franchise name, which was bought from it's parent company. I get that you're bitter cause a franchise you liked was turned into something else, but that's a completely different ballpark (and for what it's worth, I completely disagree with you)

You're wrong. He said that NV is closer to Fallout 1/2 in terms of Canon. And im sorry, but it is. In Fallout 3 everything was clear black and white, in 1/2/NV its more like different shades of grey. Also its made by the same company, NV and Fallout 2 that is. While Bethesda is a different company Obsidian is people from Black Isle. So either you just havent read up on it enough or you jumped to a conclusion.

I should really read the whole post before replying shouldn't I? Sorry about that, skimmed through it as I was doing sth else at the time. Anyway, yeah, I see what you're (or rather he was) getting at.

 

[Haxxle]

The following is simply my thoughts and assumptions:
Bethesda made a ?new story? for Fallout 3 because of the large gap between the last Fallout numbered series, Fallout One and Two, so fans would have moved away and the Bethesda wanted to, I guess, to grab a new audience to the Fallout brand thus the new story. However, when fans of the previous Fallout games played Fallout 3 and found it somewhat derailing from the original story; they pretty much made an issue about it. Obsidian, another Game company which has some of the previous members from the parent creators of the Fallout series, saw the issue by the fans and in turn fallout: New Vegas was born. Flicking through the thread?s posts and wiki, Fallout: New Vegas starts to seem like a game which is made for the Fans of fallout One and Two, since it continues with the original story, as well as a game which had mechanics which Fallout 3 could have had, EG: Aim-down-Sight, the companion wheel and etc.

In short:
-New Vegas seems more ?canonical? than Fallout 3 and it also seems to provide the Fallout one and two fans something to be happy about, I they were upset about Fallout 3's story in the first place.
-Fallout 3 seems to be more in the lines of bringing more people into the Fallout Brand and lore.

 

[Pirakahunter788]

I enjoyed Fallout 3 for it's new experience, despite it's somewhat poor story-line. I even loved listening to Three Dog on the radio. However, I will never get over the vast amount of green and brown shoved into that game.

Fallout New Vegas had an even more lack-luster story. However, I did enjoy Veronica's company, and I made a save specifically so I could murder Benny over and over and over to my heart's desire. Plus, it had some downright catchy jingles. Not to mention, who would have thought Boone was such a game-breaker?

Fallout 3 had a better story, but not by much. New Vegas had more stuff to do, better voice acting and writing, and everything wasn't some shade of baby vomit. And who wouldn't love robbing Vegas for all of it's ill-gotten goods and cash?

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Well, it's like the case with Morrowind and Oblivion, ain't it? Fallout 3 is the Morrowind, having a fantastic atmosphere and being the better game, but Fallout: NV does what Oblivion did for the TES franchise and brings about some very positive upgrades in terms of gameplay. That said, unlike Morrowind, Fallout 3 was not in such dire need of those changes, so it's a lot easier to go back and enjoy it as the better game

For those of us who've played the old Fallout games, it is Fallout 3 that is Oblivion. It gives us lots of shiny overhauls but in the process it also ripped out many of the things that made Fallout into Fallout and managed to completly miss the mark on mood and theme. NV is more like what Skyrim might be, a step back in the right direction. NV brought Fallout back to the Fallout franchise, putting back many of the things that Fallout 3 had discarded along the way.

No, that's not really a viable comparison. Morrowind>Oblivion was a direct franchise sequel, done by the same company and everything. The only thing that ties Fallout 3/NV with the old Fallout games is the franchise name, which was bought from it's parent company. I get that you're bitter cause a franchise you liked was turned into something else, but that's a completely different ballpark (and for what it's worth, I completely disagree with you)

You're wrong. He said that NV is closer to Fallout 1/2 in terms of Canon. And im sorry, but it is. In Fallout 3 everything was clear black and white, in 1/2/NV its more like different shades of grey. Also its made by the same company, NV and Fallout 2 that is. While Bethesda is a different company Obsidian is people from Black Isle. So either you just havent read up on it enough or you jumped to a conclusion.

I should really read the whole post before replying shouldn't I? Sorry about that, skimmed through it as I was doing sth else at the time. Anyway, yeah, I see what you're (or rather he was) getting at.

She. But it is worth noting that I am not bitter about Fallout 3 or the "destruction of the Fallout franchise". For what little it is worth I enjoyed Fallout 3 a lot and consider it as much a "true" Fallout game as 1, 2 or NV. Nikolaz has the right idea though: it is easy to see, in game, that New Vegas was made by the people who made the first two games. It is also easy to see that Fallout 3 isn't.

But whatever the case might be, I enjoyed Oblivion and I enjoyed Fallout 3. Fallout 3 might not hit the mark on mood and theme, but it did manage to capture the feeling of the wasteland very well and it was solid fun to play. I think that in the end the real divide between New Vegas and Fallout 3 fans is whatever you are looking for some easily accessible sandbox fun or if you're looking for (less accesible) branching quests and expositions on morality and humanity. New Vegas takes several hours to really get up to speed and doesn't offer anywhere near the same amount of freedom and exploration possibility that Fallout 3 did.

Older Fallout fans might hang me for this, but I think that several of the locations found in Fallout 3 are the best realized in all of Fallout. Especially the downtown section is extremly well made. Fallout 3 rewards exploration with some very nice procedural storytelling, which is one of New Vegas weakest areas.

 

[Condiments]

Being an older RPG gamer I didn't really like Fallout 3 too much. The exploration was fun, but quests were undermined by the subpar writing quality, and the main quest somehow manages to be both banal, and bizarre. If you're really into exploring, and dungeon crawling, FO3 would be your game.

I loved Fallout: New Vegas, being made by Obsidian. They appeal to my more old school tastes, with great writing and quest design.

 

[SimpleJack]

I had more fun playing New Vegas than I ever did playing Fallout 3 so fuck you all!

...im kidding.

Seriously though there was a lot more to do and the atmosphere was cooler (sorta wild west-ish)
I just liked it better.

 

[JamesStone]

To the first response, true, both California and Los Angeles were also bombed pretty badly, but the thing is, it´s not the location, but the situation. Los Angeles, for example, survived because their Vault wasn´t a social experiment, it was a "how this will be" but without the hallucinogenic drugs, or the ultra sounds reaction, or the "Im gonna lock you away foreva" deal. So enough pre-War men survived to use their knowledge. Now in DC almost every Vault was a social experiment that went wrong, and the ones out there were been ravashed by +50 years of Rad creatures that evolved a lot, not to mention a bunch of green dumb bastards that kill or capture everything on sight, and use fear tactics like treatining to eat their victims, and dismember the ones they kill. You see, if only a few things go wrong at first step, everything in the future will be compromised, like a giant domino effect.

What you say is true, howeverm I think that Bethesda took the whole experiment thing a little too far. Don't you think Vault-Tec would have installed at least one "normal" vault, maybe one for their employees considering their HQ was located in D.C.?

Spoiler: Lots of stuff coming up

And to the fact that Bethesda didn´t explain the FEV thing: There´s no need for it. We can conclude something without the game having to hold our hands and explaining everything. I mean, think about it: it is said that Vault-tec was a Enclave related company. The Enclave have indirect and direct control over the US experiments. They could have easily transported FEV to Vault 87, but obviously it was a prototype, because it caused a inconvient effect of stupidifing it´s subjects, even more if the subject is irradiated (but that last bit was only knowed after the War), and causing gene mutation over time. It was transported to a vault because the Enclave knew that a nuclear war was coming, and Super Soldiers are the best way to garantee dominance to whatever comes in their way after the bombs. The Enclave didn´t have direct control over the experiments at Mariposa and West-tec, so Vault 87 was probably their little failsafe, just in case they couldn´t hold the research bases. See, I used my mind to think about the most likely reason that FEV ended up in Vault 87. And this FEV might not have been a prototype, maybe it mutated after a direct warhead hit the Vault blast doors.

1. For spoiler tags, it's just

Spoiler

, not [spoilers].

I think there is a need, FEV was a big part of the Fallout world, and to just introduce it to the east coast without any explanation was either an attempt to make something really important ambiguous, or just lazy. Ambiguity works better for things like character morals and actions, or certain battle events, but not for something this important.

Plus, the FEV tests didn't become successful until about 2 years before the bombs fell. Now I'm not saying it would take more than 2 years to get the FEV across to the east, but with all the problems America had at the time it's kinda hard to believe.

Spoiler

First, yes, they installed a couple of normal Vaults: 17. That´s the canonical number of experiment free Vaults in America. So Washington might have been one of the few towns not to get a normal Vault because a) as the capital, Vault-tec knew it would be heavily bombarded so why give a shit if most people wouldn´t survive b) the really important people, aka the president, the senators, the scientists, the elite troopers and themselves (basically the whole Enclave) would already be gone in a safe base when the inhabitants went for the Vaults, so they just didn´t care.

To the second one. The problems that raged America would actually contribute to the safe passage of FEV quickly. With so much shit going on, who would care about a shipment from government officials and US allied companies?

 

[ChupathingyX]

First, yes, they installed a couple of normal Vaults: 17. That´s the canonical number of experiment free Vaults in America. So Washington might have been one of the few towns not to get a normal Vault because a) as the capital, Vault-tec knew it would be heavily bombarded so why give a shit if most people wouldn´t survive b) the really important people, aka the president, the senators, the scientists, the elite troopers and themselves (basically the whole Enclave) would already be gone in a safe base when the inhabitants went for the Vaults, so they just didn´t care.

That's true, but still you'd think there would eb at least one normal vault? Oh well, Bethesda, what are you gonna do about their creative design team?

To the second one. The problems that raged America would actually contribute to the safe passage of FEV quickly. With so much shit going on, who would care about a shipment from government officials and US allied companies?

Well I don't think they would "ship" it if you're talking about the literal term of "shipping" something. Still, you're guessing/assuming, and although that is a good thing and your points for the most part are quite vaild, it isn't fact. Bethesda did a bad job when it came to consistency in Fallout 3, FEV is a perfect example.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I know NV had it's good points, (like jury-rigging) but it also had fucktons of glitches and loading times. If you're patient, that probably won't bother you too much.

That?s the thing. If New Vegas wasn?t full of glitches, crashes, and load times (some of which never ended) I would?ve thought it was the best game from last year.
But even so, I wouldn?t have liked it more than F3.
While I liked the improvements they made with the main story (branching with factions), the shooting, hardcore mode, and the companions, New Vegas was missing a lot of what made Fallout 3 so amazing.
Like even though the Mojave was in a much better state than the capital wasteland, the latter felt more alive and spontaneous. Mostly because it had all manner of weird encounters that would be waiting for you in the middle of nowhere: escaping slaves, wastelanders fighting over water, people you?ve (intentionally or unintentionally) rescued running up to thank you, and all sorts of stuff like that. Even with the Wild Wasteland perk, the Mojave felt like a relatively dead place that wasn?t nearly as spontaneous and unpredictable. And while there were more locations in the Mojave, few of them were the expansive narrative oozing settings in Fallout 3. The only place in the Mojave that felt as well thought out as the majority of locations in Fallout 3 was Vault 11. While that place made me feel like I had just walked in on a Twilight Zone episode?s climax, there were a lot of settings in the capital wateland that gave me that particular brand of heebe geebies.
As I?ve played Fallout 1 & 2, I can understand why some people liked New Vegas more but personally, I felt more lost, more overwhelmed(in games that can be a good thing), more spontaneous, more rewarded, more creeped out, and generally more enjoyment with Fallout 3.

 

[JamesStone]

First, yes, they installed a couple of normal Vaults: 17. That´s the canonical number of experiment free Vaults in America. So Washington might have been one of the few towns not to get a normal Vault because a) as the capital, Vault-tec knew it would be heavily bombarded so why give a shit if most people wouldn´t survive b) the really important people, aka the president, the senators, the scientists, the elite troopers and themselves (basically the whole Enclave) would already be gone in a safe base when the inhabitants went for the Vaults, so they just didn´t care.

That's true, but still you'd think there would eb at least one normal vault? Oh well, Bethesda, what are you gonna do about their creative design team?

To the second one. The problems that raged America would actually contribute to the safe passage of FEV quickly. With so much shit going on, who would care about a shipment from government officials and US allied companies?

Well I don't think they would "ship" it if you're talking about the literal term of "shipping" something. Still, you're guessing/assuming, and although that is a good thing and your points for the most part are quite vaild, it isn't fact. Bethesda did a bad job when it came to consistency in Fallout 3, FEV is a perfect example.

True, it isn´t fact, but with logic we can find out why. But your point is pretty valid, seeing that it´s most likely that this entire reasoning exercise wasn´t done on purpose, but rather because Bethesda was kinda lazy.

 

[Evil the White]

I feel that NV is better once you actually get to New Vegas. Mainly because the game is very linearly-built until you get past Novac and you get to explore all the fun and different places.

Also, because half the side-bits you can do up to there, you can't do without dropping all the points you get for the first few levels into one skill.