Fallout New Vegas

[Starke]

1. you cant exactly run a commodore 64 in this day and age. you either keep up with the times, or you're just a caveman in modern clothing. i also like to keep my options open when i see a game i like.

2. its not demand, they merely want to recreate the impossible. they want to recreate the same success halo had. have you seen the BIG releases this year? RTS games and RPGS. Starcraft, civilization, etc. now people will try to recreate the starcraft profits for the next 10 years.

3. you just defined escapism... then called it something else.

4. it is if you want any real variety. you cant bypass conflicts by being a part of a faction in Fo3 like in the originals or bypass them by using disguises.

1. Granted but still upgrading years ago is unnecessary, if you did do research, many people are still running on XP, most companies are still running on windows 95

In what third world country? Most companies I know upgraded from NT or 2000 to XP, and continued to use XP. Though I'm seeing a lot of kick over to Win 7 now. Which means companies stopped using Windows 95 sometime back in the 90s.

2. It is demand, people still want incredible games, this is very difficult for developers to do so they recreate games hoping the market will still buy the game. Most of the time they will because the product has enough variety from the original or it is compatible for the modern generation console

Er... what? It is hard for companies to make games so they will make games?

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "without research, it is hard to know how to classify games", and leave it at that?

3. Exactly, playing gritty shooters is still escapism

Depends on how you define "gritty". If it's a visual aesthetic, sure, whatever. If it's a gameplay tone, that can get real old real fast.

4. Okay I will admit there is as many choices as maybe the other fallouts but for a game about the nuclear apocalypse, I feel as though making a riddle which blows someone's head off is a bit silly for a game with a serious tone

What are you talking about? Serious tone my ass. Fallout 2 had the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch and a killer bunny in addition to the aforementioned bridge gag, riffing on Holy Grail alone. Easter eggs included finding a downed shuttlecraft from the Enterprise and a hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy referencing whale and pot of petunias. And that was just random encounters.

In non-random encounters you could run across pinky and the brain, get Wallstreet quoted at you and muse that "I always suspected Jesus had ties to organized crime."

 

[The Rockerfly]

In what third world country? Most companies I know upgraded from NT or 2000 to XP, and continued to use XP. Though I'm seeing a lot of kick over to Win 7 now. Which means companies stopped using Windows 95 sometime back in the 90s.

It's very expensive, difficult and unnecessary for most companies to switch, msot retailers are on 95 and a supplier I had for the last few years ran on 3.0, ouldn't even give me a standing total

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "without research, it is hard to know how to classify games", and leave it at that?

Yeah I think that would be the best bet

Depends on how you define "gritty". If it's a visual aesthetic, sure, whatever. If it's a gameplay tone, that can get real old real fast.

If we're on about fallout 3, it's defiantly a visual thing but the overall tone is serious, which is weird when you consider how much unrealistic things your character applied to

What are you talking about? Serious tone my ass. Fallout 2 had the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch and a killer bunny in addition to the aforementioned bridge gag, riffing on Holy Grail alone. Easter eggs included finding a downed shuttlecraft from the Enterprise and a hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy referencing whale and pot of petunias. And that was just random encounters.

In non-random encounters you could run across pinky and the brain, get Wallstreet quoted at you and muse that "I always suspected Jesus had ties to organized crime."

I meant the overall idea of trying to survive in a nuclear wasteland. I like the idea of hardcore mode because it's almost like a simulation of what I would do in that situation. I just think it really distracts me from the idea of having a nuclear wasteland when everything is silly

Well you sure said it enough times.

What's your point though? Half the times it wasn't used in the same context, how about I point out the times you use the word "and", it'd be pretty much the same thing

Pretty sure I didn't say I disliked it. I just prefer the older games.

Okay fair enough

But you did imply low difficulty made for a stupid game.

Low difficulty on fallout made it stupid, having it on a high difficulty made you think a lot more. That's why I can't wait for hardcore mode. Also I never implied anything

What?

Tl;dr, gamers need variation, we get bored, we can't play the same campaign over and over again. Why we buy new games

... Again, what? What does this have to do with anything?

You mentioned about action films, I related it back to this situation

Doesn't really excuse the bad rendering, texture quality, character models and animation. Again though, there are more important things to worry about than technological prowess.

Fallout 1, 2 and tactics are very ugly by today's standards. I found the PC version to have fine rendering and texture, while the consoles was overall uglier everything was rendered faster. However everyone on pc games seem to have different experiences

Okay, when?

Sorry to a different person, this is getting confusing

 

[luckycharms8282]

honestly, no I dont think it will be as good. It will possibly be awesome, but not the pure orgasm FO3 was

Whoa.

You'll have to remind me, when was F3 an orgasm?

The game was good, but... F2 was better :/

Purely your opinion that F2 was better, just like it's my opinion that FO3 was a great game. Now Im pretty sure the OT asked for my opinion which I gave. Now lets quickly compare FO3 and F2, shall we?
F2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOpVmEqD-Co&feature=related
F3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFkMgksMB8o

Now, you make the claim that a game made in 1998 is BETTER than Fallout 3. I find it surprising you can even compare two games that were made a decade apart from each other. Probably the only reason you say F2 is better is because you played it as a child. You now feel nostalgic whenever you think about it, and as time goes on you idealize the game and make it seem better than the pixelated nightmare that it really is.

Have I done a sufficient job reminding you, or do you want me to dedicate my afternoon to pleasing you?

so we can only like fallout if we are children? funny, because fallout 3 was so damn simple my legally retarded cousin called it easy. now i ask you, should i imply fallout 3 is only for legal retards? no, yet you call fallout 2 for children when teens cant even understand it.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said it was FOR children. I said that he had most likely played it as a child and therefore remembers it fondly. Please stop using your stupidity as a reason to flame me.

 

[Sephychu]

It'll certainly trump the wonder-turned-piss-pile that Fallout 3 was.

I loved it, then I liked it, now I hate it.

 

[luckycharms8282]

Way to go, OT. Im sure it wasnt your first intention, but, once again, people are fighting over which Fallout game is really the best. FO3 and FO2 are so different they might as well not even share the same name. Why do so many people feel the need to force their opinions on others? If you think one is better than the other, that's fine, but I honestly dont care about your opinion (speaking to everyone in general).

 

[TheSentinel]

I've never understood why it has to be one or the other. Fallout 3 introduced me to the series. Recently, I bought the Classic bundle off Steam. After some quick patching, I played FO and FO 2 (Still haven't gotten to Tactics yet). All three rock my socks off, in different ways. The only truly bad game bearing the Fallout tag is "Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel," which does not actually exist.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

I feel as though making a riddle which blows someone's head off is a bit silly for a game with a serious tone

Fallout never had, nor intended to have a serious tone.

 

[-Drifter-]

Way to go, OT. Im sure it wasnt your first intention, but, once again, people are fighting over which Fallout game is really the best. FO3 and FO2 are so different they might as well not even share the same name. Why do so many people feel the need to force their opinions on others? If you think one is better than the other, that's fine, but I honestly dont care about your opinion (speaking to everyone in general).

You sort of started it. Someone said that they thought Fallout 2 was better, and you bashed the game and accused them of being nostalgic. You shouldn't whine about a fight breaking out when you're the one who issued the first punch.

So anyway, time to wade back into the fray.

Well you sure said it enough times.

What's your point though? Half the times it wasn't used in the same context, how about I point out the times you use the word "and", it'd be pretty much the same thing

Not really. "And" is a connecting word. "Stupid" is just a word. And when someone uses a word numerous times it starts to get noticeable.

But you did imply low difficulty made for a stupid game.

Low difficulty on fallout made it stupid, having it on a high difficulty made you think a lot more. That's why I can't wait for hardcore mode. Also I never implied anything

Yes, you did. You said "[it's] funny how lots of people think mainstream shooters are" ... ahem... "stupid when you can die in a few however in games like TF2 or Half Life you can soak up bullets like a sponge." Not a whole lot else that could mean.

What?

Tl;dr, gamers need variation, we get bored, we can't play the same campaign over and over again. Why we buy new games

Not really relevant. I know why people play new games, I still fail to see why this makes old games bad.

... Again, what? What does this have to do with anything?

You mentioned about action films, I related it back to this situation

Uh, if you say so.

Doesn't really excuse the bad rendering, texture quality, character models and animation. Again though, there are more important things to worry about than technological prowess.

Fallout 1, 2 and tactics are very ugly by today's standards.

It's Fallout 3 we're talking about here.

I found the PC version to have fine rendering and texture, while the consoles was overall uglier everything was rendered faster. However everyone on pc games seem to have different experiences

Maybe so, but the animation is still extremely robotic and floaty. Also, I'm not really sure what I meant when I said badly rendered, I meant bad art design.

Okay, when?

Sorry to a different person, this is getting confusing

Alrighty then.

 

[TheSentinel]

I think what he is getting at is that the people who prefer the originals do so due to the nostalgia factor. It's retarded, but not at all what you think he is saying.

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

It'll definitely be great, but... yeah, Fallout 3 will likely be better, if only because it came first... well, third.
It'll be a hard act to follow, is what I'm saying.

 

[Blatherscythe]

honestly, no I dont think it will be as good. It will possibly be awesome, but not the pure orgasm FO3 was

Whoa.

You'll have to remind me, when was F3 an orgasm?

The game was good, but... F2 was better :/

Okay, I'm sick of fanboys crying about how "Bethesda fucked up Fallout". Let's see, combat, F1-2 had turn based combat and had "dice rolls" for hit or miss, sure you could try VATS but it was still the same dice rolling crap, the winner was usually the guy with the better gun. Fallout 3 had real time combat, could pause to let the player pick body parts to cripple enemies to great effect, being less rigid meant more strategies could be incorporated, stealth may not be great but it's there, unlike 1-2 where you generally were not given said option in combat.

Graphics, 3d vs 2d who wins? Gameplay, F3 is much more action packed and can keep your attention longer than F1 or 2, I'd rather have an easier FPS than an unforgiving, isometric, turn based shooter. Story wise is where a tie comes in. You may get more backstory and sub-plots in F1-2, but in the end all the stories are rather simple and straightforward. Not much in the way of plot characters either.

Take off your damn nostalgia glasses, the only reason people who loved F1-2 like F:NV better than F3 is because some Obsidian employees are from Black Isle. God damn does it feel good to get that off my chest.

Are you quite done? No? Yes? Okay, good.

Now then. I never said that Bethesda fucked up Fallout. Ever. Kindly don't put words in my mouth.

VATS was an interesting system, but ultimately I still prefer the turn-based system in Fallouts 1, 2, and especially Tactics.

Graphics have no bearing on a game. At all. Isometric or first person, sprites or bump-mapping, doesn't make a shit of difference to me.

As stated above, I played Fallout 2 after Fallout 3, so obviously nostalgia cannot apply.

I find it amusing that you so vehemently attack me over something so small. Really, my friend, is it worth being so rude? I prefer Fallout 2, obviously have no nostalgia (due to playing Fallout 2 AFTER Fallout 3), and have given my reasons why. The 'tactics' you speak of in Fallout 3 are pointless, since doing anything besides shooting your enemy in the head is generally a waste of precious bullets. And besides that, that level of strategy was in Fallout 1 and 2 as well, but implemented better since it actually made more than a very very very minor difference.

However, you are entitled to your opinion. I only ask you to not state it in such an aggressive manner next time.

Have a nice day.

Alright, I'm sorry. I posted while mad because I decided to take a look at a Fallout fansite "No Mutants Allowed" and to be honest, I've player F1 to F3 including tatics and I still like F3 best, of course the NMA community hate Fallout 3 purely based on the fact that Black Isle didn't make it. I tend to get pissed when I'm on that site.

I'll try stating my opinion on the games better now. I didn't put a whole lot into graphics, in F3's case the FPS and 3D helped with immersion, something that F1-2 cannot do as well. Combat is a bit more exciting in F3 because I dislike turn based combat, F1-2 also had this bad habit of bullshit luck, overpowered enemies having bigger guns than you, since it was mostly stat and roll based that left a lot of strategy out. Fallout 3 did it better in my opinion, you can still pick off enemy limbs and the winner isn't always the one with the fucking minigun, stealth is still petty much shit in all the games though (excluding Tatics).

You still have options on how to deal with problems in F3, about as much as F2 not so much F1, Following in his Footsteps is a great example of this in F3. Stroy is about the same, F1-2 were let down by what was availible at the time, they mostly told not showed, Fallout 3 was the opposite, they mostly showed not told. All the games are good and again I'm sorry for my overreaction.

Although the bias majority of NMA's community can take their rose colored nostaliga glasses and shove them up their asses.

 

[TheSentinel]

You used a Minigun in the originals? How could you go two rounds without blowing your own party to shreds?

 

[DustyDrB]

Hmm. Nevermind. I was thinking I might give this game a try, but I watch some gameplay previews and was reminded why I didn't like Fallout 3: drab scenery and VATS-centric combat. I prefer my post-apocalyptia to looks like this:

Oh, curse my particular tastes. I honestly wished I could have enjoyed Fallout 3, as I can't deny it was a great game. But they clearly intended for players to use the VATS as much as possible and I didn't find that style of combat to be engaging in the least. But that's just me.

 

[The Rockerfly]

You sort of started it. Someone said that they thought Fallout 2 was better, and you bashed the game and accused them of being nostalgic. You shouldn't whine about a fight breaking out when you're the one who issued the first punch.

Always happens with these kinds of threads. Same with any thread that mentions Halo or pc gaming. Someone has an opinion, someone disagrees, they start making very petty points to try and win the argument going very off topic, ruining the thread and both feeling pissed off with each other

Honestly, I don't think Fallout New Vegas and 3 are comparable to 1, 2 and tactics. The age difference the gameplay style, the graphics style and the fact they are different genres

Not really. "And" is a connecting word. "Stupid" is just a word. And when someone uses a word numerous times it starts to get noticeable.

So? "and" might be a connecting word but you didn't make a point so it would make about as much sense, really don't understand why you did it

Yes, you did. You said "[it's] funny how lots of people think mainstream shooters are" ... ahem... "stupid when you can die in a few however in games like TF2 or Half Life you can soak up bullets like a sponge." Not a whole lot else that could mean.

I think you took the wrong end of the stick. A lot of people think realistic shooters are stupid, when in comparison their alternatives are completely ridiculous. I didn't say I think it's stupid.

Not really relevant. I know why people play new games, I still fail to see why this makes old games bad.

That was relevant because it was why we need new games
Old games have very different styles to satisfy consumer needs at the time, however consumer needs change very quickly and that's why games change from generation to generation. It's difficult going from a 3D first person shooter to say a 2D top down rpg.

It's Fallout 3 we're talking about here.

I know but I still think the others are still ugly by today's standards, to be fair though they are 10 years old

Maybe so, but the animation is still extremely robotic and floaty. Also, I'm not really sure what I meant when I said badly rendered, I meant bad art design.

Yeah I was wandering what you were on about, I will agree it's not the prettiest shooter ever but it's still a large world, lots of interesting places to go, people to see and it's much fuller then Oblivion was

However there is room for improvement which I am hoping new vegas is going to offer

 

[The Rockerfly]

I feel as though making a riddle which blows someone's head off is a bit silly for a game with a serious tone

Fallout never had, nor intended to have a serious tone.

I mean the whole idea of a nuclear apocalypse, I like the idea of a very realistic version of it and I just find it hard to believe everyone making the situation funny. Along with the more serious looking world it just seems very weird to try and be gritty grey and a none serious tone

It's why I very much like the idea of hardcore mode

 

[Bihac]

I was going to dive into the Original FO's vs FO3 argument but I'm pretty sure that's over with now.

My greatest concern with New Vegas will be the amount of DLC it'll have... and should I get it when it comes out... or in a years time when it's GOTY.

 

[badgersprite]

Is it an open world? Are there a lot of places to explore? Is the game filled with loads of colourful characters who are more than a little bit off their rocker? Can I explodinate my enemies in creative and amusing ways? Can I be a first-person smartass to everyone I meet? Can I play as a depraved psychopath if I so choose? Are there plenty of little surprises and sidequests tucked away in many corners of the map? Is there a creepy and disturbing undercurrent hiding beneath the ironic veil of humour that permeates much of the world?

If you answered yes to all of the questions above, then I am going to have a ball with this game, just like I did with Fallout 3.

 

[thenamelessloser]

I think New Vegas is probably going to be better at least for me. I was surprised I found Fallout 3 fun when I rented it because I played Morrowind before which I found boring. (But really liked the first two fallout games) Fallout New Vegas is Fallout 3's gameplay with few of the people who worked on the first two Fallouts working on it which motivates me to actually buy the game next week. I also like Obsidian a lot since I really liked KOTOR II and Alpha Protocl even though they were both had bugs and glitches as well which were both made by Obsidian. Planescape: Torment was also one of my favorite games as well...I never played Neverwinternights 2 because my PC sucks though.

 

[DonkeyKongCuntry]

it will be amazing! ive spent around 200 hours on fallout 3. by the way have you played oblivion? great game

Whoever has played fallout 3 should definitely play oblivion because in my opinion they are the absolute best RPG's in the f*cking world and anyone who disagrees is muff cabbage LOL

 

[Brutal Peanut]

I'll buy it and devour it that's to be sure (just like Fallout 3), but, I can only speculate at this point. I'm sure I'll have more praise/abuse to give it after I actually play it. But knowing myself,I'll probably enjoy the hell out of it.