Just figured out why I like Fallout 3 more than New Vegas

scorptatious

The Resident Team ICO Fanboy
May 14, 2009
7,405
0
0
Neronium said:
CardinalPiggles said:
Might I recommend the older games then? Fallout 2 is probably the best out of all the older ones and is a lot of fun, although it's combat involves a lot of clicking.
The first Fallout had a 30 day time limit which is why I don't recommend it to start off, and Tactics is sorta hit or miss really. Avoid Brotherhood of Steel though, that's something you should do. XD
30 days? Think you might be thinking of Pikmin. The time limit on Fallout 1 was 150 days. And the time limit only affects the first half of the game. (Unless you're playing an older version of the game which had a second overarching time limit.)

But yeah, the first two Fallouts were pretty sweet. If it weren't for New Vegas, I probably would have never bothered to try them.
 

Bolt Van Der Huge

New member
Jun 12, 2011
16
0
0
Abomination said:
New Vegas is the real Fallout III. Fallout III should have been called Fallout: DC.
Wow. That actually works. New Vegas follows much more sensibly as a sequel to FO1&2 than FO3 does, thematically and geographically. Fallout 3 had to "revive" the series and likely wouldn't have had the same impact with the name Fallout: DC, even though it's a kick ass name.
I may have to start calling it that.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
Bolt Van Der Huge said:
Abomination said:
New Vegas is the real Fallout III. Fallout III should have been called Fallout: DC.
Wow. That actually works. New Vegas follows much more sensibly as a sequel to FO1&2 than FO3 does, thematically and geographically. Fallout 3 had to "revive" the series and likely wouldn't have had the same impact with the name Fallout: DC, even though it's a kick ass name.
I may have to start calling it that.
Better to just "think" it when you say it rather than say it. Calling it Fallout: DC will make people think you're talking about the expansions to New Vegas.

And just to confuse everyone if/when Fallout IV is released it'll be on the back of the story in New Vegas.
 

Brian Tams

New member
Sep 3, 2012
919
0
0
Eh, Fallout 3 felt a bit empty, and there was less to do. As far as RPG gameplay goes, Fallout New Vegas is superior. And I'm still a little bit jaded at the fact that navigating the DC ruins was a gigantic cluster fuck, where the street you think is going to lead straight to your objective is suddenly cut off by rubble, forcing you to spend a lot of time backtracking through the super copy-pasted subway tunnels (fuck those tunnels). This is compounded by the fact that the map markers kept getting confused.
And let's not forget that Fallout isn't meant to be a tale about post-apocalyptic survival, but rather post-apocalyptic reconstruction.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
1
0
scorptatious said:
Neronium said:
CardinalPiggles said:
Might I recommend the older games then? Fallout 2 is probably the best out of all the older ones and is a lot of fun, although it's combat involves a lot of clicking.
The first Fallout had a 30 day time limit which is why I don't recommend it to start off, and Tactics is sorta hit or miss really. Avoid Brotherhood of Steel though, that's something you should do. XD
30 days? Think you might be thinking of Pikmin. The time limit on Fallout 1 was 150 days. And the time limit only affects the first half of the game. (Unless you're playing an older version of the game which had a second overarching time limit.)
My bad, I've been playing a lot of Pikmin 1 lately so I got them confused. XD
Still they are completely awesome games, and I think it's because I played those 3 before Fallout 3 that I didn't like what Bethesda did to the lore a bit in FO3, and that's why I loved New Vegas so much.
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,875
0
0
Saviordd1 said:
Good sir, you've only now realized what I've known for years. The first time playing through New Vegas, I knew exactly why I preferred the desolate, survival-driven Capitol Wasteland over the settled nature of the Mojave. I love both games, but I know which I fancy more. As you already know, there will be plenty of folk around here who prefer to tell their opinion rather than share it that will say Fallout 3 is inferior due to the very thing that made me fall in love with the franchise to begin with. Claiming they alone know what the series is "supposed" to be about. Don't listen to them. You've got support from people who respect your opinion regardless of if they agree with it.

Oh, and if anyone starts arguing in numeric list format, ignore them. For some reason, arguments presented in numeric list tend to frequent Fallout threads.
 

irok

New member
Jun 6, 2012
118
0
0
Hahaha, owl. You could be onto something, its the reverse for me and I just got why, I like new Vegas because I like the wild west more then the radioactive wasteland even down to the color of the dirt and if we skim over all the engine improvements and the simple fact that NV has more content it is just a choice of do you want a world on the rise or a world in ruins.
 

scorptatious

The Resident Team ICO Fanboy
May 14, 2009
7,405
0
0
Neronium said:
[
My bad, I've been playing a lot of Pikmin 1 lately so I got them confused. XD
Still they are completely awesome games, and I think it's because I played those 3 before Fallout 3 that I didn't like what Bethesda did to the lore a bit in FO3, and that's why I loved New Vegas so much.
As someone who played the older games after New Vegas. It was pretty cool seeing the humble origins of the NCR in 1. As is seeing the Crimson Caravan, the Gun Runners, ect. Plus I also found it cool how you could have Marcus and Cass's dad as companions in 2.

Fuck Lynette though. That ***** can get eaten by deathclaws.
 

A-D.

New member
Jan 23, 2008
637
0
0
Mylinkay Asdara said:
Two things - one, yes, they make us love our dad and want to find him - which... why the heck wouldn't we? He seemed like a decent guy. The premise of the plot is that he is a decent guy, in fact, who does the right thing all the damn time and is out to save the fricken world. So... I've just never understood the complaint about that "pre-set" as an excuse to have anything like a main plot. I mean - NV - maybe I don't give a crap that some guy shot and buried me, maybe I'm just thrilled to be alive, maybe I say screw it I won't tangle with a guy again who took me out once! Nope. I want revenge. I want to meet him. It's an imperative for my character regardless of how I think about it so there can, in fact, be the kick off of a main plot. Some things are going to have to be assumed at some point for a plot to be provided initially.

Second - the D.C. area being so far behind the curve of everywhere else is explained in the game both subtly and explicitly (no I don't know where, go comb a wiki if you like, I will explain) as due to the fact that, being where our capital is, they got bombed extremely heavily - as did much of the East Coast, where population is very concentrated and most of our political historical institutions and artifacts of significance are housed. By contrast, Vegas was shielded by House's countermeasures, and took relatively little bomb incoming and thus had an advantage in both preservation of existing structures and infrastructure and a lesser radioactivity. D.C. was highly radioactive and essentially reduced to rubble and remained irradiated through time due to the significance of the bombing they took.
First, yes he seems like a decent guy. But when we go out to find him, we do not specifically know that. He might be a alright Father, he could have been a drunk, a drug addict, maybe he beat you as a kid, the problem is that he is constructed that way to be a good father, which inherently isnt wrong. But consider that fact, you had the best father in the world for..say 20 years. You did everything together, you played together, laughed, cried and so forth. Yet he never tells you about his life, what he did before you were born, or even whether he plans to restart his work once you are old enough. Then he just leaves all of a sudden without informing you or anyone, setting events into motion that would have you beaten, incarcerated or killed at worst and made a social pariah at best.

When you go out to the world, you get a few nebulous clues about his past, like Moriarty, telling you that he came through megaton 20 years ago with you under his arm, but nothing concrete. Except her reaffirms that your Dad was a great guy. Three-Dog? He does the same, he sings praises about your dad and how he is a good man, but he tells you little. Even Rivet City, where you end up afterwards the details are sketchy. Only when you find your Dad he tells you why he went out of the vault to find Vault 108 and his plan to purify the water, realistically speaking, by this point you have done at least several things that could have potentially killed you and many more which got you into harms way. This may not be his intent, but its also his oversight for not considering that his departure from the vault, a vault which NOBODY leaves, might have repercussions on you which could potentially force you to flee from your safe home.

The plot doesnt give you any reason to really care about it, all the various characters do is tell you how great your dad is, but not why he is great, or what he does or why what he does is important. You have no reason to be proud of him until you find him and he explains it. Until then? Everything you had to get through to find him would make you cynical at best, bitter and hateful at worst, for the simple fact that just to get answers from him as to why he screwed up your life, you had to travel this far and get into this much danger.

Now granted, the revenge plot of new vegas isnt really any better, except it presents itself better. The game doesnt care whether you actually follow the plot, whether you take the road as the questlog indicates. You can go north instead of south, dangerous it may be it is doable. But the idea is that you arent exactly out for revenge, although it can be a motivator. Curiosity is another, why did Benny shoot you? What was so special about that Chip? None of it really matters in the sense that, even if you skip the whole mainplot, once you get to new vegas it comes up directly, when House asks to speak to you. So unless you avoid the Strip directly, which you can, you will end up back on track, but it happens more organically. You dont know House is waiting for you until you get there, and even then you can ignore him to go see Benny instead, if this was Fallout 3, you could not do that. New Vegas waits for you, you can do everything in your own order and the game will not feel static or stopped due to it. For example, after you meet House and get the Chip back from Benny, you go to the Fort, to see Ceasar anyway, well you can also just shoot the place up if you want. But say you talk to him first, he will actually reference to things you did that either hindered or benefitted him, he will even mention if you killed Mr. House, something you can choose to do without it having to be a quest to kill him.

And if we go with the Radiation, if as many bombs had dropped on DC as claimed, there would be nothing. Rivet City, Megaton, Tenpenny Tower, dead and empty ruins, or non-existant. On the East Coast, west of LA, lies the Glow, the remains of the West-Tek Research Facility that you have to find and visit in the first game. It was hit directly by several atomic warheads and is so irradiated that staying there for too long will kill you within a day, faster even without such things as Rad-X and RadAway, additionally it has active security defences which killed a Brotherhood Squad in T-51b Power Armor, some directly, some indirectly. Please note that the T-51b at the time of the war was the most advanced power armor produced, enclave variants were made after the great war. West-Tek was hit because it was a research and military installation, and we go there, 80 Years after the great war. If DC had been hit by as many, nobody would have survived, aside from people in vaults, of which only one within the DC area actually functioned as advertised (and nobody was allowed to enter or leave). Yet we are told that DC was hit the hardest, meaning by more bombs than West-Tek, or Los Angeles (the Boneyard, which by the way had a fully functional Vault-Tec Prototype Vault which people used for shelter as the bombs dropped), there would be nothing alive there, there might not even be any rubble left, the place would quite literally be glass.

For the sake of argument lets assume that DC is still there though, with that many bombs, the radiation would have been so massive that, if it was still in effect 200 years after the war, you could not take a single step without needing anti-radiation medicine, it wouldnt just be the water, it would be the soil itself. You could not grow any plants there, it is literally "scorching and salting the earth". Nobody could live there unprotected, not 20 years after the bombs, not 100 years after the bombs, not even 150 years after the bombs. Yet we are to believe that several thriving communities exist, some of which are older than 50 years? Or even older than 100? And if they are not, are we to believe they just sprung up 30-40 years ago, maybe 50? Just at random? Why would people want to live there if you can not properly feed any kind of population because you cant really farm with the ground saturated in radioactive crap. Plus, anyone who had lived there and was not instantly incinerated by the blast (Vault 101, the others failed before opening most likely) would have been ghoulified by the sudden, massive burst of radiation which caused their existence in Fallout 1 when the Bakersfield Vault-Door was rigged not to close entirely as per the Vault Experiment. So even then, everyone would be a Ghoul except anyone living in Vault 101, which would not be you, you came in from outside.
 

Saviordd1

New member
Jan 2, 2011
2,455
0
0
scorptatious said:
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
It's so weird how both Fallout 2 AND New Vegas, both games that were rushed out by dead lines, seem to have quite a bit more content than their predecessors.



Not really weird.

Fallout 1 and 3 both had a common thing, they had to start from the ground up. Art assets, engine building, etc.

It's much easier to make a game when the foundation is pre-laid.


OT: Jesus, this thread derailed hard. I suppose I was being overly optimistic when I hoped this wouldn't turn into a war.
 

Skeleon

New member
Nov 2, 2007
5,410
0
0
I get what you mean, OP. I do prefer especially the inner DC ruins of Fallout 3 to New Vegas. Many more ruined buildings to explore, streets, blocks. Heck, even the subways, repetitive as they may be, are awesome in terms of atmosphere.
All that said, I still prefer New Vegas for gameplay reasons (quests, perks, interactions etc.). Not to mention I like its DLCs better, which are a huge part of the respective games to me.
Considering how much closer we are to the West Coast in New Vegas, it kind of makes sense that the feel would be more similar to the old games, heh.
 

Mikeyfell

Elite Member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
41
The reason I like F3 better then FNV is that FNV is extremely linear. I played it once then tried to start again. When I realized I was in for about 18 hours of the same exact stuff I said fuck it.
 

thehorror2

New member
Jan 25, 2010
354
0
0
The only problem FNV had that F3 didn't was that it was shamefully bad at hiding its invisible walls. There were just as many in F3, only they were camouflaged better. (The few they tried to justify in-universe, on the other hand can be exemplified by the radiation around Vault 87. Stupid, barely in keeping with the canon, and only there to railroad the player. (In this case, to railroad the player into visiting Little Lamplight, which sucked in ways most modern games can only DREAM of sucking.)
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
Mikeyfell said:
The reason I like F3 better then FNV is that FNV is extremely linear. I played it once then tried to start again. When I realized I was in for about 18 hours of the same exact stuff I said fuck it.
Er, I don't think you know what linear means.

F3 was far more linear tha NV.
 

scorptatious

The Resident Team ICO Fanboy
May 14, 2009
7,405
0
0
Saviordd1 said:
Not really weird.

Fallout 1 and 3 both had a common thing, they had to start from the ground up. Art assets, engine building, etc.

It's much easier to make a game when the foundation is pre-laid.


OT: Jesus, this thread derailed hard. I suppose I was being overly optimistic when I hoped this wouldn't turn into a war.
Yeah, good point. It is easier to make a sequel to a game using the same engine and foundation. Still though, despite being rushed out and the bugginess of both games, they still both turned out to be very good. At least to me anyway.
 

Mylinkay Asdara

Waiting watcher
Nov 28, 2010
934
0
0
A-D. said:
Mylinkay Asdara said:
First, yes he seems like a decent guy. But when we go out to find him, we do not specifically know that. He might be a alright Father, he could have been a drunk, a drug addict, maybe he beat you as a kid, the problem is that he is constructed that way to be a good father, which inherently isnt wrong. But consider that fact, you had the best father in the world for..say 20 years. You did everything together, you played together, laughed, cried and so forth. Yet he never tells you about his life, what he did before you were born, or even whether he plans to restart his work once you are old enough. Then he just leaves all of a sudden without informing you or anyone, setting events into motion that would have you beaten, incarcerated or killed at worst and made a social pariah at best.
It's a serious imaginative stretch to take what you see and hear of him being a nice, caring, even-handed father and get to an extreme, hate-worthy negative. Overprotective and coddling is a lot closer to the starting point you're given, but (and maybe this is just my childhood of neglect talking) that's hardly hate-worthy to my mind. Actual hate. Not, pissy about not being in-the-loop of dad's business. Which, by the by, when you find him, you can tell him you're not interested in traveling with him back to Purity and having a hissy fit if you really care to, not that you won't end up there eventually anyway, helping, if you want to finish the main story anyway (if I recall correctly, it's been some time).

A-D. said:
When you go out to the world, you get a few nebulous clues about his past, like Moriarty, telling you that he came through megaton 20 years ago with you under his arm, but nothing concrete. Except her reaffirms that your Dad was a great guy. Three-Dog? He does the same, he sings praises about your dad and how he is a good man, but he tells you little. Even Rivet City, where you end up afterwards the details are sketchy. Only when you find your Dad he tells you why he went out of the vault to find Vault 108 and his plan to purify the water, realistically speaking, by this point you have done at least several things that could have potentially killed you and many more which got you into harms way. This may not be his intent, but its also his oversight for not considering that his departure from the vault, a vault which NOBODY leaves, might have repercussions on you which could potentially force you to flee from your safe home.
The fallout (no pun intended) of what he did by leaving was not a known-known for him as he left. The radroaches and some other issues came to a simultaneous head and the Overseer was a lot more ready to jump to violence than maybe could have been anticipated. There's a communication he leaves with Jonas (I think that's the name) you can recover that basically says he thinks you, as an adult accepted member of the vault in your own right now, will probably face some anger but will eventually be able to smooth things over by keeping in line with the rules in time.

A-D. said:
The plot doesnt give you any reason to really care about it, all the various characters do is tell you how great your dad is, but not why he is great, or what he does or why what he does is important. You have no reason to be proud of him until you find him and he explains it. Until then? Everything you had to get through to find him would make you cynical at best, bitter and hateful at worst, for the simple fact that just to get answers from him as to why he screwed up your life, you had to travel this far and get into this much danger.
I tended to blame the Overseer and the apathy of the Vault population in the face of his tyrannical dictatorship way more than Dad for leaving that behind. I mean, if I really gave it a lot of thought, maybe I could go the way you seem to, which is towards the resentment of the set-up and then abandonment thing, but I might end up going pretty far the other way too - I mean, the man must have been going insane with frustration in that Vault the whole time he was raising me up and mortality and old age was knocking on his mind to get away from the mindless vault and back into the world to do some good, being one of the few folks capable of good on such a scale. With a plan and everything.

A-D. said:
Now granted, the revenge plot of new vegas isnt really any better, except it presents itself better. The game doesnt care whether you actually follow the plot, whether you take the road as the questlog indicates. You can go north instead of south, dangerous it may be it is doable. But the idea is that you arent exactly out for revenge, although it can be a motivator.
Oh sure, but that robot is going to be in the towns on the path you're supposed to take (and directly North is deathclaw land, not really a viable "path" anywhere until you have a seriously beefy combat ability). I mean - you can say screw it to Dad for just as long as you can say screw it to going to Vegas to find Benny/meet House.

A-D. said:
Curiosity is another, why did Benny shoot you? What was so special about that Chip? None of it really matters in the sense that, even if you skip the whole mainplot, once you get to new vegas it comes up directly, when House asks to speak to you. So unless you avoid the Strip directly, which you can, you will end up back on track, but it happens more organically. You dont know House is waiting for you until you get there, and even then you can ignore him to go see Benny instead, if this was Fallout 3, you could not do that. New Vegas waits for you, you can do everything in your own order and the game will not feel static or stopped due to it. For example, after you meet House and get the Chip back from Benny, you go to the Fort, to see Ceasar anyway, well you can also just shoot the place up if you want. But say you talk to him first, he will actually reference to things you did that either hindered or benefitted him, he will even mention if you killed Mr. House, something you can choose to do without it having to be a quest to kill him.
I'll totally grant that NV's main plot is more complex and choice based than FO3's - hands down. It's more elaborate, responsive, sensitive to order of your operations and all you're saying here. Of course, the nature of the plot (who will control NV?) calls for that. FO3's main plot is more basic and linear.

A-D. said:
And if we go with the Radiation, if as many bombs had dropped on DC as claimed, there would be nothing. Rivet City, Megaton, Tenpenny Tower, dead and empty ruins, or non-existant. On the East Coast, west of LA, lies the Glow, the remains of the West-Tek Research Facility that you have to find and visit in the first game. It was hit directly by several atomic warheads and is so irradiated that staying there for too long will kill you within a day, faster even without such things as Rad-X and RadAway, additionally it has active security defences which killed a Brotherhood Squad in T-51b Power Armor, some directly, some indirectly. Please note that the T-51b at the time of the war was the most advanced power armor produced, enclave variants were made after the great war. West-Tek was hit because it was a research and military installation, and we go there, 80 Years after the great war. If DC had been hit by as many, nobody would have survived, aside from people in vaults, of which only one within the DC area actually functioned as advertised (and nobody was allowed to enter or leave). Yet we are told that DC was hit the hardest, meaning by more bombs than West-Tek, or Los Angeles (the Boneyard, which by the way had a fully functional Vault-Tec Prototype Vault which people used for shelter as the bombs dropped), there would be nothing alive there, there might not even be any rubble left, the place would quite literally be glass.
The first game was much closer to the nuclear event. There are lots of kinds of bombs, but I see your point. That's the explanation the game gives anyway, and the White House is... really really really (go there and you will die soon) irradiated above ground when you if you bother to do the convoluted tunnel crap to peek in there. The "I'm making up a theory right now" response to that from me would be, I guess, maybe the research facility turned into goo because of a combination of what was being researched there and the bomb? Usually goo pits are not the result of atomic bombs - I don't think.

A-D. said:
For the sake of argument lets assume that DC is still there though, with that many bombs, the radiation would have been so massive that, if it was still in effect 200 years after the war, you could not take a single step without needing anti-radiation medicine, it wouldnt just be the water, it would be the soil itself. You could not grow any plants there, it is literally "scorching and salting the earth". Nobody could live there unprotected, not 20 years after the bombs, not 100 years after the bombs, not even 150 years after the bombs. Yet we are to believe that several thriving communities exist, some of which are older than 50 years? Or even older than 100? And if they are not, are we to believe they just sprung up 30-40 years ago, maybe 50? Just at random? Why would people want to live there if you can not properly feed any kind of population because you cant really farm with the ground saturated in radioactive crap. Plus, anyone who had lived there and was not instantly incinerated by the blast (Vault 101, the others failed before opening most likely) would have been ghoulified by the sudden, massive burst of radiation which caused their existence in Fallout 1 when the Bakersfield Vault-Door was rigged not to close entirely as per the Vault Experiment. So even then, everyone would be a Ghoul except anyone living in Vault 101, which would not be you, you came in from outside.
I don't think Fallout is real strong on the science of nuclear apocalypse. Not the real science anyway. You make good points, but they all tag into the "realism" category, which has never been that strong a priority in the series as far as I've ever been able to tell. There are a lot of ghouls in the area though, the ladies in the Museum talk about how many there were right after the bombs and how so many eventually went feral over the decades and centuries.

Mainly I think the problem is the groundwater and aquifers being irradiated and thus not supporting normal life/plants/etc. in the area - a problem around which the main plot revolves. Lots more parts of D.C. are radiation areas than I saw in NV too. You certainly don't see much "normal" vegetation or really any non-mutated wildlife in the D.C. area, other than some dogs etc. There are no major verdant areas.

I don't know. I know it's a major sticking point for a lot of people, but it's never been a big bother to me - but the more I think about it, maybe it's because FO3 was my first Fallout game I played myself, rather than watched someone else play or simply read about.

I like both games a lot and I think they have different strong points. I totally agree with the OP about the grim atmosphere of D.C. being attention gripping for me. Every little artifact that gives a clue of how things went so wrong or what life was like before the bombs was always interesting to me - in both settings - but seemed particularly poignant in D.C. where society has clearly not yet recovered and hope is meager, rather than in NV where the current society seems more vibrant and present than the long gone people of the past.
 

Gennadios

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1,157
0
0
Well, I can't disagree with the point. F3 had a WAAAAY better atmosphere, Bethsoft does atmosphere in open world games extremely well, but some of the quests still didn't sit right with me.

Basically Obsidian storytelling > Bethsoft storytelling and Obsidian atmosphere < Bethsoft atmosphere. Really depends on what one's preference is, especially since not everyone has enough hours to count quests and do every single thing in a given game.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
Deshara said:
Abomination said:
Mikeyfell said:
The reason I like F3 better then FNV is that FNV is extremely linear. I played it once then tried to start again. When I realized I was in for about 18 hours of the same exact stuff I said fuck it.
Er, I don't think you know what linear means.

F3 was far more linear tha NV.

In NV if you set out in any direction other than east(?) the game kills you, and doesn't really warn you about it. Go north and deathclaws run you down. Go west and flies run you down. In F3, you start off and can pick a direction and just walk. There are stronger enemies than you can handle, sure, but they get stronger as you get deeper into their territory, not acting as a living wall to funnel you into a path the way NV does. NV's main quest was more open to different endings, but the actual map itself isn't open at all.
Depends on if we're talking about map linearity or quest linearity.

Then again a map being an open thing isn't always a good thing, especially when there are so many breadcrumb starters to quests or factions scattered across the game. If you booked it straight to New Vegas you would miss out on a ton of content. But when the branches start appearing they are vast branches indeed.

Fallout 3? There's a lot of faffing about to be done but a lot of it is so disconnected from the overall story. It feels like a lot of what you do doesn't really matter. In Vegas everything you do matters someway, somehow.