Escape from New Vegas

[flamingjimmy]

Who am I? Who was I working as a courier for? why would I give a crap about finishing my job at this point? where's my home? I got shot in the head, most people would just call it quits and find a safer line of work. There doesn't seem to be any personal investment at all, my character is just told to go after the dude who shot you for no apparent reason.

That's because it's a "role-playing game", you decide what role you want to play in the game. The only thing you know at the start is that you're a courier, you fill in the blanks.

That seems like a cop out to me, I'm not asking for them to define every aspect of my character, just to give him some sort of context, with the complete blank slate approach there is absolutely no emotional investment at all. I'm perfectly comfortable with role playing (I used to do d&d every week) so its not that. I just expected more. It's like I said, there's no first act.

New Vegas, in terms of dialogue, offered much more flexibility when creating your character, there were many more speech checks for things like Intelligence, speech, barter, perception, science, medicine etc.

I couldn't stick with it long enough to find out because the game does absolutely nothing to draw you in at the start. That's my problem, I know I'll like the game if I could just get into it, but I just can't seem to get through the first few hours without a strong urge putting in back on the shelf for a few weeks and playing something else, then when I come back to it, it starts all over again.

 

[Syzygy23]

If i may...
Is it only me, or Bethesda's concept for NV seems like "let's build big town with neons, and forget the rest - Wasteland, Fallout's unique atmosphere, scenarios with multiple endings and approaches - all are unimportant" ?

Fallout 3 is better because you can kill Moira Brown.

For all what's holy : why kill Moira ?! She's adorable.

You consider yourself a hardcore fan yet know nothing about its lore? I don't you understand what "hardcore" is. Did you even play the first two games? It seems the first two games you ever played was Fallout 3 and New Vegas. You relied on Fallout 3 for information, a mistake worse than using Fox News as your source.

Fallout 3 was an outdated relic that abandoned continuity. No different from making a modern star wars movie that claims the ones before it didn't happen and creating its own little universe. The lore is around Warhammer 40k in depth, and fallout 3 got all of it wrong. New Vegas was the only new fallout game to get it right.

Civilization was around for a CENTURY. Fallout 3 disregarded that.

Tech was WAY more advanced than Fallout 3 let on.

The humor is gone from Fallout 3.

FEV was only allowed at Mariposa military base and West Tek research center. Not DC.

Need I go on?

And we all know how powerful biotechnology corporations like to follow rules in these kinds of settings! What's that? FEV is only allowed at Mariposa and a single research center? Ok, you got it!

uh huh. That sort of attitude clearly follows the established characteristics of pre-war corporations in the Fallout universe. They always were on the straight and narrow! DERP!

Advanced tech... in an irradiated wasteland, one of the hardest hit areas in North America... yeah. I think it speaks for itself that it didn't let on that tech was way more advanced, because most of it was BLOWN UP or fried by the radiation, not to mention any weather damage during it's 200 odd year stagnation in the wasteland. Cripes, do you listen to yourself?

 

[ChupathingyX]

That seems like a cop out to me, I'm not asking for them to define every aspect of my character, just to give him some sort of context, with the complete blank slate approach there is absolutely no emotional investment at all. I'm perfectly comfortable with role playing (I used to do d&d every week) so its not that. I just expected more. It's like I said, there's no first act.

They did give you context;

You're a courier for the Mojave Express who was delivering a package and was hot in the head and left for dead. When Doc Mitchell does his tests on you, you, the player, are telling him what kind of person you are and when you decide your perks you are defing your character's, well...traits.

The emotional investment is what you give to your character, personally I found F3 forced too much emotion on you and expected you to care for your father and want to find ol' daddy, which to me felt like a cop out. If I want to be a murderous dickhead I should be able to and tell my dad to go fuck off with his little project. And no, inserting the FEV does not count, all it does is make a couple of people sick, and you never get to even join the Enclave.

I couldn't stick with it long enough to find out because the game does absolutely nothing to draw you in at the start. That's my problem, I know I'll like the game if I could just get into it, but I just can't seem to get through the first few hours without a strong urge putting in back on the shelf for a few weeks and playing something else, then when I come back to it, it starts all over again.

Well that's you, personally I was drawn in as soon as an NCR soldier walked by and Easy Pete pronounced Caesar with a hard "c".

 

[Nulmas]

Oh, and Dave Foley's in it, and he's awesome as fuck. Then again, Fallout 3 had Liam Neeson... Hm. Tough call.

The Dave Foley from Newsradio? Who is he? I love/d that show. I just marathoned a couple of seasons on Netflix a few months back. It's the only show with a laugh track that I can stand.

Dave voiced the Yes Man.

 

[Aeriath]

Warning, the following opinions are from someone who didn't play through the original Fallouts and therefore they may be hazardous to your health:

Fallout 3 vs New Vegas is a toughie. In 3 you have Moira Brown and Three Dog. Now, I know that a lot of people hate these characters but they had a sincerely positive attitude in a world gone to shit and I liked that.

Fallout 3 also had a very depressing atmosphere and some very interesting locations. However, while playing the game I was annoyed by a few things. In the 200 years since the bombs fell, civilisation in the Wasteland really hasn't gone anywhere. It feels as if the people living in the Wasteland are just waiting to die. The main quest aims to improve their living conditions by purifying the water but the people living there don't seem to be making an effort to rebuild so I doubt the water situation would change much.

New Vegas is a big contrast. The atmosphere is more positive and there is some excellent humour. The people of the Mojave have reinstated some kind of order. They are organised, with proper settlements and supply trains and travellers. It's like you're exploring an actual, living world which has arisen from the ashes of nuclear fire. There are also a lot of gameplay improvements in NV, from the factions system, multiple quest lines, new weapons etc. It's just a shame that the radio sucks.

I suppose that if you ignore the gameplay upgrades then I prefer New Vegas because of the positive outlook on the post-apocalypse world rather than 3's depressing one.

You are completely right that you go throughout the entire DLC for the gold and only get to carry out 5 or 6 of them. In theory.
Unless you glitch your way out of the vault with all 37 through the forcefield with mines and other explosives

Just wanted to mention that with very precise timing and a high sneak skill you can get the bars out without glitching.

 

[Insanityblues]

New vegas had more interesting, morally ambiguous characters. As opposed to Fallout 3 where the brotherhood are all armored saints and the Enclave all eat puppies for breakfast.
Also, in Fallout 3, enemies were always the same level as you, no matter where you were. In New Vegas however, there are places where you'll get your ass handed to you if you're not careful, I liked that, it added a sense of adventure. Wondering how powerful your foes would be also gave the game some tension wich was lacking from Fallout 3.

 

[Zenn3k]

For a few years i was uneable to play any modern game. However, with brand new PC i am finally back on tracks so to speak. I consider myself hardcore Fallout fan, so it should be pretty obvious what were first titles i wanted to play.

Fallout 3 was pretty good. Much better than anticipations - oh i do remember those rusty "orcs with rifles" arguments and i'm happy they have been proven wrong. I played FO3 a little, finished main quest, tried a few mods. Then i installed New Vegas.

Long story short, i am very dissapointed with this abomination. I can't uderstand why to some people NV seems superior to FO3. However, i am aware that this topic is dead and i don't want to ressurect it.

Instead, i'm curious. Indulge me please : are here people like me - that tried both games and went back to FO3 ?

I've played both.

I found NV to be superior, but only slightly.

It had a much stronger narrative and better use of skills to be sure. Also, hardcore mode is a blast.

Beyond THAT, they really aren't that different. The one major negative that NV has is the lack of freedom to explore that FO3 had.

The world of NV is smaller and much more A-B-C, without any possibility to deviate. You'll always go south, then up through Novac, then to the bridge trading area, then to Vegas. In FO3 you could run straight to Rivet City from the Vault if you wanted...sure, you'd break the story a bit in the process, but you still COULD.

Either way, I haven't played either of them in ages. Hopefully the next one will be built on the Skyrim engine and will be amazing.

 

[TimeLord]

You are completely right that you go throughout the entire DLC for the gold and only get to carry out 5 or 6 of them. In theory.
Unless you glitch your way out of the vault with all 37 through the forcefield with mines and other explosives

Just wanted to mention that with very precise timing and a high sneak skill you can get the bars out without glitching.

My sneak skill was something pathetic like 28 xD

In response to the rest of your post. I also am a non-pre-Fallout 3 player and I think Fallout 3 trumps New Vegas. I agree that New Vegas is much more positive than 3, but the people in 3 were stifled by a lack of leadership and oppressed by Super Mutants all over DC and the wasteland.
However, I am a great fan on the Brotherhood of Steel and enjoyed their increased involvement all over the wastes compared to New Vegas' 'we're gonna hide in our bunker and even though we keep saying that some of us were locked out, they are never seen in the Mojave'... syndrome.
I enjoyed the wasteland itself in 3 over New Vegas, even with the wild wasteland perk, but maybe that was more the reason I prefer 3's wasteland. It just felt more interesting and involving than New Vegas'. Not to say that New Vegas had a poor wasteland to explore, but I think 3's was more immersive, to the point where I liked to trudge across the Wasteland but preferred fast travelling the Mojave.

Edit: New Vegas' story trumps 3's story, 3 trumps NV's side quests, I wouldn't like to choose between the DLCs for each game

 

[flamingjimmy]

That seems like a cop out to me, I'm not asking for them to define every aspect of my character, just to give him some sort of context, with the complete blank slate approach there is absolutely no emotional investment at all. I'm perfectly comfortable with role playing (I used to do d&d every week) so its not that. I just expected more. It's like I said, there's no first act.

They did give you context;

You're a courier for the Mojave Express who was delivering a package and was hot in the head and left for dead.

A backstory that can (and just has been) summed up in a single very short sentence. That's not enough.

The emotional investment is what you give to your character, personally I found F3 forced too much emotion on you and expected you to care for your father and want to find ol' daddy, which to me felt like a cop out.

Even if you discount the part with your dad there's still loads more stuff in the intro to fallout 3 than there is in new vegas. The fact that there's a place where your guy came from that is an actual community with people that know you makes a load of difference to me. It's the classic adventure story first act: Young innocent guy grows up in a (sort of) idyllic community where everything seems rosy and fine, then all of a sudden, an event throws everything the guy has grown up with into chaos and you have to set out into the big wide world on the adventure of a lifetime. New vegas doesn't even try to have a first act, just a 2 minute cutscene and that's it.

If I want to be a murderous dickhead I should be able to and tell my dad to go fuck off with his little project. And no, inserting the FEV does not count, all it does is make a couple of people sick, and you never get to even join the Enclave.

I'm not commenting on the game as a whole, just pointing out that it failed to draw me in, I've got no idea what choices you get to make later on in New Vegas.

Well that's you, personally I was drawn in as soon as an NCR soldier walked by and Easy Pete pronounced Caesar with a hard "c".

Well I didn't play the old fallouts for more than a few hours round a friend's house so for me, the game has to stand up on its own, and can't fall back on nostalgia.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

I like them both but I like Fallout: New Vegas more. I don't think 3 should have been set 200 years after the great war maybe have it in 2177, having it between Fallout 1 and 2 would have been better. For me it is a bit like Morrowind and Oblivion. One is much better (Morrowind/New Vegas) but the other one is still very good (Oblivion/3.)

 

[JPArbiter]

my biggest issue with new vegas is that even post patches I keep getting corrupted save files and freezes. it got to the point where I shot the disc with a .308 (67% cnahce to hit in V.A.T.S. at 30 yards), and am waiting to replace it when Obsidion puts all the DLC on the disc.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I did TRY to go back to Fallout 3, but I already had 400+ hours in it, so I had done pretty much everything. Three times.

I really don't understand the hate for NV. Yeah, it wasn't as god as 3, but it had some GREAT improvements and the whole narrative was far superior.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

It seems to me that people who prefer Fallout 3 had never played or disliked Fallout 1 and 2.

I enjoyed both Fallout 3 and NV, but I prefer the latter much more.

I also cannot stand playing the original games - I simply cannot get into the combat system.

 

[Aeriath]

In response to the rest of your post. I also am a non-pre-Fallout 3 player and I think Fallout 3 trumps New Vegas. I agree that New Vegas is much more positive than 3, but the people in 3 were stifled by a lack of leadership and oppressed by Super Mutants all over DC and the wasteland.
However, I am a great fan on the Brotherhood of Steel and enjoyed their increased involvement all over the wastes compared to New Vegas' 'we're gonna hide in our bunker and even though we keep saying that some of us were locked out, they are never seen in the Mojave'... syndrome.
I enjoyed the wasteland itself in 3 over New Vegas, even with the wild wasteland perk, but maybe that was more the reason I prefer 3's wasteland. It just felt more interesting and involving than New Vegas'. Not to say that New Vegas had a poor wasteland to explore, but I think 3's was more immersive, to the point where I liked to trudge across the Wasteland but preferred fast travelling the Mojave.

Edit: New Vegas' story trumps 3's story, 3 trumps NV's side quests, I wouldn't like to choose between the DLCs for each game

I'll grant you that the Capital Wasteland is a far harder place to live than the Mojave. I sill feel that they are behind the curve of recovering after the war though. With all the weapons and manpower available, you'd think they'd be killing a fair few Super Mutants (especially the Enclave, and when they arrive the BoS). I'm not entirely sure about this so call me on it if I'm wrong, but isn't the population of Super Mutants in DC finite? Eventually over the course of 200 years you'd expect the Super Mutant population to dwindle. After that the threat level is much lower than the Mojave (because let's face it, Cazadors have their own danger level, I'd rather meet a Deathclaw or 10...).

The BoS in NV were a bit of a disappointment, but they did show that the organisation is human and prone to failures. In 3 they were a bit White-Knighty for my tastes although that can probably be attributed to the karma system.

DC certainly is a haunting place, it is so atmospheric that I can't think of any other game worlds that match it. This is actually one of the issues that caused me to be uncertain about NV for the first 10-20 hours, but when I got to Vegas everything just kind of clicked into place that I needed to look at it differently to fully enjoy it. This was also a problem for me in FO3, at first I hated it but then I decided to just wander the wastes and I fell in love with DC. I suppose you could say that I fell in love with FO3 for the setting (and Moira and Three Dog!) and NV for everything else.

Can't comment on the DLC unfortunately as I've only played the first 3 NV ones.

 

[JamesStone]

...why aren't you writing for this site?

I'm not 18 (which I think is a requirement), and I'm busy with school. Plus other than Fallout and maybe some more less known video game series I wouldn't know what to write about.

I agree with this, but there´s something I can explain. DC isn´t rebuild after 200 years because it was one of the most bobmbed places in America. It was their capital and almost everyone died. Only a few poor bastards that couldn´t leave the area because Super Mutants would fuck their shit up in the moment they tried. Only a few communities could rise because there wasn´t a) many people to begin with b)fertil space. But that doesn´t excuse Mothership Zeta, so, agree with almost everything, prefer NV so much more. I play Fallout 3 for the rollercoster experience.

California was bombed pretty hard too, Los Angeles was almost completely wiped out. Plus the NCR city was built from the ground up, it wasn't based around the ruins of a city. Also about fertile space, there really isn't any reason ever given as to why there is no living plant life around D. C.

P.S: Also, to everyone complaining about FO3 Super Mutants and FEV:

Spoiler: drumrolls please

It was a government experience, and the Enclave could have access it in no time. Considering Vault-Tec´s afiliation with the Enclave and their desire to conquer everything, they gave it to one of their Vaults to experiment a prototype version. Combine the prototype stage with the Nuke that hit Vault 87 and allowed for major mutations and you get your explanation about different Super Mutants. True the Behemoth was taking it a little to far, but it´s still believable considering everything that can occur with genetics. [/spoilers]

Spoiler: drumrolls please

The thing is that it's never explained in the game.

Yes it's possible, but when it comes to important things like FEV and super mutants, Bethesda really should have given a reason and background info as to why Vault 87 was given a prototype FEV. Sometimes a little ambiguity is a good thing, but not in this case.

Spoiler: drumrolls please

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.

[spoilers= 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. [/spoilers]

 

[TimeLord]

In response to the rest of your post. I also am a non-pre-Fallout 3 player and I think Fallout 3 trumps New Vegas. I agree that New Vegas is much more positive than 3, but the people in 3 were stifled by a lack of leadership and oppressed by Super Mutants all over DC and the wasteland.
However, I am a great fan on the Brotherhood of Steel and enjoyed their increased involvement all over the wastes compared to New Vegas' 'we're gonna hide in our bunker and even though we keep saying that some of us were locked out, they are never seen in the Mojave'... syndrome.
I enjoyed the wasteland itself in 3 over New Vegas, even with the wild wasteland perk, but maybe that was more the reason I prefer 3's wasteland. It just felt more interesting and involving than New Vegas'. Not to say that New Vegas had a poor wasteland to explore, but I think 3's was more immersive, to the point where I liked to trudge across the Wasteland but preferred fast travelling the Mojave.

Edit: New Vegas' story trumps 3's story, 3 trumps NV's side quests, I wouldn't like to choose between the DLCs for each game

I'll grant you that the Capital Wasteland is a far harder place to live than the Mojave. I sill feel that they are behind the curve of recovering after the war though. With all the weapons and manpower available, you'd think they'd be killing a fair few Super Mutants (especially the Enclave, and when they arrive the BoS). I'm not entirely sure about this so call me on it if I'm wrong, but isn't the population of Super Mutants in DC finite? Eventually over the course of 200 years you'd expect the Super Mutant population to dwindle. After that the threat level is much lower than the Mojave (because let's face it, Cazadors have their own danger level, I'd rather meet a Deathclaw or 10...).

The BoS in NV were a bit of a disappointment, but they did show that the organisation is human and prone to failures. In 3 they were a bit White-Knighty for my tastes although that can probably be attributed to the karma system.

DC certainly is a haunting place, it is so atmospheric that I can't think of any other game worlds that match it. This is actually one of the issues that caused me to be uncertain about NV for the first 10-20 hours, but when I got to Vegas everything just kind of clicked into place that I needed to look at it differently to fully enjoy it. This was also a problem for me in FO3, at first I hated it but then I decided to just wander the wastes and I fell in love with DC. I suppose you could say that I fell in love with FO3 for the setting (and Moira and Three Dog!) and NV for everything else.

Can't comment on the DLC unfortunately as I've only played the first 3 NV ones.

To my knowledge, Super Mutants evolved due to Vault experimentation post war. So they had a few years to multiply and then leave the Vault. Also, Super Mutants are made via exposing a normal human to the FEV virus and that mutates them. Since SM's cant multiply via sexual means.

You should remember that very few bombs fell on the Mojave. None on Vegas itself. They didn't need to re-build much in the Mojave AND they had proper leadership or an occupying force (the NCR). Whereas everything in DC got nuked and no one took much charge outside of their bubbles like Rivet City. The BoS themselves being distrustful of outsiders.

 

[JamesStone]

snip.

I agree with this, but there´s something I can explain. DC isn´t rebuild after 200 years because it was one of the most bobmbed places in America. It was their capital and almost everyone died. Only a few poor bastards that couldn´t leave the area because Super Mutants would fuck their shit up in the moment they tried. Only a few communities could rise because there wasn´t a) many people to begin with b)fertil space. But that doesn´t excuse Mothership Zeta, so, agree with almost everything, prefer NV so much more. I play Fallout 3 for the rollercoster experience.


P.S: Also, to everyone complaining about FO3 Super Mutants and FEV:

Spoiler: drumrolls please

It was a government experience, and the Enclave could have access it in no time. Considering Vault-Tec´s afiliation with the Enclave and their desire to conquer everything, they gave it to one of their Vaults to experiment a prototype version. Combine the prototype stage with the Nuke that hit Vault 87 and allowed for major mutations and you get your explanation about different Super Mutants. True the Behemoth was taking it a little to far, but it´s still believable considering everything that can occur with genetics.

fixed, make sure when you make a spoiler that you end it with "spoiler", not "spoilers".

no biggy tho


OT: i guess it's just personal taste, however OP you seem to be a bit...trollish.

i personally prefer NV in every single way, and think FO3 is garbage comparitively in every single category to it, but i do get that everyone prefers different things so i'm not gonna choke you because you prefer FO3 to NV.

but still..;lsdjkaf;lsjadf;lj0asdfl;dsafsdf is how i feel when trying to compare these games.

Hey thanks. And yeah, Fallout New Vegas is better, I was just saying that Fallout 3 isn´t all that abominable as some people try to make it look.

 

[DarkRyter]

I like New Vegas much much more than 3.

The story is better.

And for me, that's all there is to it. When Bethesda inevitable makes a Fallout 4, I dearly hope they get JE Sawyer and Chris Avvelone to work on the story.

Being the ultimate factor in a standoff between the warring factions and schemes of Vegas just seemed alot more interesting than

"Let's clean water, Dad! OH NO! Enclave! Pchoo pchoo!"

Pchoo pchoo are laser noises.