In all honesty, I don't see how anyone could think Fallout 3 were better than Vegas. F3 completely lacks the Fallout soul and I'm not sure it even qualifies as an RPG. The defining characteristic for this genre is choice and consequence, which was really poorly implemented in 3. Blow up Megaton or let the town live? Help the Brotherhood or ... aid the enclave? It all just didn't matter. The actual role playing component was also completely lacking due to the fact one would have his useful skills maxed by lvl. 20. For me Fallout 3 was a big world filled with emptiness, in more ways than one.
Somehow 3 is held in high regard by many and it's being harolded as a great RPG, but if this is what is meant with the term RPG, we should invent a new one for games like Fallout 1 and 2, Planescape, Knights of the Old Republic and the like.
Why isn't DC just a massive crater? I'm pretty sure that the enemies of the US, China, would not want the capital of the US to still exist. If Vegas/nevada had around 200 Nukes launched on it (where only 7 hit thanks to Mr House), Why weren't 1500 launched on the US with most hitting.
1: New Vegas was defended by a civvie with money. DC was defended by the government itself. Do you honestly thing that civvie is going to have access to better gear than the government?
2: DC was slammed. Look at the difference between the east and west coasts. DC is still in the "Huddling in whatever scrap I can find" stage of recovery, whereas the west coast has formed governments, credit lines, paper currencies, limited manufacturing capabilities, all sorts of stuff like that. DC itself is a nearly uninhabitable ruin.
3: For gameplay reasons, there had to be something left of the city. Playing a game set in a big-ass crater wouldn't have done anything.
#1- Yeah, sure, but I think lore states that the government did not actually do much, and I think there may have been a likelyhood that Robco Had more money than the US with its economy in shambles due to Peak oil, and the war effort. I know, I must be a dickhead because I brought lore up...
#2- it was slammed, but not really as much as you would expect. You could still go places without bathing in radiation, and a great deal of the city is still there. The Citadel, while probably would have been protected in a preliminary stage, still probably would have been hit with a fuckton of Bunkerbusters, leaving not even the lower levels intact. The only building from what I have seen on the fallout wiki (didn't get fallout 3 expansions) in DC that got a realistic fate is the whitehouse, and some would expect that would have gotten even more protection than the pentagon.
#3 was my reasoning. Don't really mean to be a dick (sorta...) but I was trying to point out that DC shouldn't exist in the fallout world anymore, rather than just bethesda trying to shoe horn a location that Lore-wise wouldn't exist in.
I love New Vegas, much more so than 3. It had a sense of humor that was sorely lacking from FO3. The Mojave just felt a lot more vibrant than the Capital Wasteland, even if it was just a different flavor of dirt.
New Vegas was simply more interesting and more fun than anything in FO3.
Oh, and my Elite Riot Gear is amazing, in all ways.
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.?
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.
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.
-snip-
Dead Money also gives a very interesting twist at the end when you find out that the Sierra Madre treasure is a vault of gold, gold too heavy to even carry out meaning everything you did was for almost nothing. This reinforces the story of the DLC about greed and letting go.
-snip-
You should do a proper review with all that in that post, but I just wanted to point out this bit. 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
Ironically you actually CAN make out with all the gold. You have to get Elijah to come down to the vault, then hide in a corner near where he enters while using the only stealth boy in sierra madre. Wait for him to approach the vault then you can literally just walk (without sneaking) right out as Elijah gets trapped inside forever.
It was tricky to figure out the timing of when to start walking so that you don't get discovered or trapped by the force field, but oh man the caps. You pull it off and you never have to worry about money the rest of the game. Selling them with max barter gets you over 9k caps each and there are 35 of the buggers.
Honestly, I can't help but feel sad knowing that someday Fallout may go back to Bethesda. Fallout has and always will be THE game that got me into gaming as a young girl, before Fallout I only ever played Mario. I still remember when I first played Fallout 2 and how engrossing it was, I had zero idea what I was doing or what any of it was. I spent literally weeks just figuring out how to make a character it was after all the first pc game I had ever played.
I would bring the manual to school sneaking it behind my textbooks reading every word. Slowly with the manual at my side I was able to figure out all the skills, how burst mode worked, how to recruit companions and which perks to take. The lessons didn't even stop there as the game continued to teach, showing how every action has a reaction, how the short term gain of selling yourself has a long term effect on your karma I could go on and on about this for pages. But simply Fallout 2 is what opened the door of gaming to my 12 year old self, without it I would never have tried Baldur's Gate or even be a "gamer" today.
So to sit back and watch Bethesda basically change and destroy not just the story of Fallout but it's soul isn't even the worst part. It's knowing that many people don't even know about Fallout 1 or 2, and that to them Fallout 3 IS Fallout and all I can do is sit back and watch this Impostor steal the identity of my favorite series.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
