ChupathingyX said:
Let me just say that I am enjoying this discussion quite a lot, it's nice to talk to someone who isn't a raving Bethesda fanboy and actually supports their claims.
Well, that's good to hear. I, too, am enjoying this discussion [small](even if it is preventing me from sleep)[/small]. Believe me, other than Fallout 3, I'm not a huge Bethesda fan, don't you worry [small](though, I am interested in Skyrim, but I digress)[/small]. I'm just glad this hasn't turned into an angry mud slinging debate where both sides lose.
War Penguin said:
Mothership Zeta? Okay, look, I'm not going to talk about any DLC in Fallout 3 or New Vegas, I'm talking about the base game. Just thought I'd get that out of the way because in another argument you made, there were DLC characters, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there.
Again, I'm afraid I'm a little lost on what you're trying to say. Are you saying that Wild Wasteland in New Vegas denounces the events of Mothership Zeta in Fallout 3? I need a little more clarification before I can continue with this argument.
Okay I don't want to go into DLC too much either but basically; Aliens were not canon in F1/2, F3 made them canon, Wild Wasteland retconned that by making them only appear with WW (J. E. Sawyer said that WW was not canon).
Alright, that makes things much less confusing, thank you for clarifying. Aliens were present in Fallout 1 and 2, but only as easter eggs, that I understand. However, since Mothership Zeta was DLC, I still never really considered it canon. Just a really, really long easter egg.
Oh, and just as an interesting thought, not really part of the discussion, but I read somewhere that UFOs were most commonly seen when there was high amounts of nuclear activity. During WW2, when the Americans dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, Roswell, where they were doing those testings, etc. I think the aliens were a nod to all of that. Granted, I still don't think they should be considered canon, but I still think it's interesting. If I find it, I'll send it to you, if you would like.
How am I being condescending? I'm not denying that you've played through Fallout 3 and did research. Otherwise, if I thought you didn't, I wouldn't have bothered to have this discussion with you. But that's not the point, back to the main discussion.
Fair enough, one of your statements just seemed that way, never mind.
Alright, but if I was being condescending, I didn't mean to be and I'm sorry if I was or will be.
And maybe I did pick a bad example; You did bring the quest into an interesting light for me, but I still didn't think it was as properly executed as it was in "Those." "Those" was in it's own little world that didn't require the support of the main story. "Can You Find it in Your Heart" needed that support, which I thought crippled it in story telling. In "Those," a boy needs some help because of fire breathing ants which were made by a crazy scientist. That's all you needed. It was all told in a neat little story. In "Can You Find it in Your Heart," it required much more back story that wasn't as tight as it was in "Those." I guess you could make the argument that it give the sense that much more connected, therefore alive. And you know what? I'd be fine with that answer. But to me, the story wasn't as nicely and clearly told as it did in "Those."
Yes that's true but that's the thing, you can't just take everything by face value you have to look at the grand picture, then if you do you will see why "Can You Find it in Your Heart" is more interesting than you first thought. Don't get me wrong I'm not necessarily saying "Those!" was a
bad quest, just that it really didn't do anything to support the Fallout world, but enough about giant ants.
And that's what I suffered from: Not seeing things at face value. Granted, when I first played "Those!" and first played "Can You Find it in Your Heart," I instantly thought "Those!" was the better quest because of the craziness. But looking much deeper into each quest, I now think "Can You Find it in Your Heart" is just as good, but for a totally different reason.
I guess while Fallout 3 had more insane and weird quests, New Vegas had much more connected and interpretive quests.
However, I will say there's no reason not to have both. This is what I thought New Vegas should have done: Have deeper, connected quests
and crazy quests at the same time. It had a few of that, like the quest with the ghouls trying to go to space. I thought that there would be more of that, but I was disappointed. Still, in the light that you've shone, I can learn to appreciate the quests much more.
Chief Hanlon? The guy who made false field reports? Okay, I agree, he was interesting to talk to, but he was gone ten minutes after I first met him [small](by gone I mean... well, bang)[/small].
He still had a lot of information to give though. He is one of the best sources of information for why the NCR are not as good as everyone thinks. He gives you a lot of backstory about the First Battle of Hoover Dam and also gives his opinion on the current major NCR leaders. He also talks about how the rangers and NCR first made contact with Hoover Dam and the Legion and how he lead them to victory.
He's a great source of info for a lore junkie and even talks about the NCR's campaigns into Mexico.
Well, that's the problem I had with him: He was treated like a story book and not as a character. When he did show character, I liked it a lot. But it was so minimal. I was extremely disappointed.
Marcus? I only found him memorable because of Fallout 2, nothing more.
He was a peaceful, intelligent mutant that is actually trying to build a civilisation for mutants and create peace between mutants and the NCR (cosidering how much the NCR hate mutants e.g. Mean Sonofabitch). The closest thing in F3 was Underworld, a paranoid city of ghouls who didn't seem to be making much attempt of negotiation compared to Marcus and also doesn't have as much background lore. When talking to Marcus he gives you a lot of information aboutt he formation of Jacobstown and how it came about and even mentions the Chosen One from Fallout 2 which is nice. However, I admit that after exhausting dialogue and doing his quest he becomes useless, would've been nice to have him as a comapanion again. Also his opinions on the current situation are nice to listen to.
Actually, Marcus suffered the same problem as Hanlon did: He was treated as a history book and barely a character. And really, all of the interesting features about him were only carried on from Fallout 2, how humans and mutants had made peace [small](excluding the Capital Wasteland, but that's another discussion for another time)[/small].
Col. Moore? I saw her as nothing more than a hard-ass colonel, very generic.
She's a good representation of what the NCR is doing wrong. She is very pro-military and very anti-diplomacy, a major weakness for the NCR that has caused them to be so hated by so many communities. Her answer to everything is just more guns or kill them, a very negative, barbaric and backwards approach to forming a republic and one that will clearly lead to the end of the NCR if it continues.
Okay, I like how you talked about how Moore and Hsu were totally different. This I like and it did bring more character between the? well, characters.
President Kimbal? When did you actually see him? I only saw him when he was making that speech and was trying to prevent his assassination. I saw no character in that.
It isn't just what you encounter personally, but also what other people say about them. Although you only see him once he is mentioned by other people in conversation. It can be gathered that Kimball is a president obsessed with his own legend and the legend of the NCR, he is thick-headed and clearly does not see the error of his ways and when it comes right down to it really doesn't care for his own country. If you listen to his entire speech at the very end he says a very private thing without realising the microphone is still on that basically shows he doesn't care aboutt he soldiers or anyone and that as long as the NCR stay glorious then so will he.
Ah, well, I never really got to hear his speech, mainly because I was focussing on how to save his ass. Still, I'll trust you that he was just an egotistical twat who didn't care one bit about his me.
Gen. Oliver? Reminded me of Patton, minus the personality. That was probably because of the laughably bad performance of the voice actor, though.
That basically who he is; Patton but without the military capability. He is very similar to Moore in that he is more focused on military matters and becoming a legend than he is fighting for his own people and soldiers. He is arrogant and basically Kimball's lacky. He is especially interesting to talk to when siding with House or Yes Man because he refuses to believe that he has lost and shows just how thick-headed he is. Yes I admit his voice wasn't that great but his lines were, and his uniform, and seeing him throw off Hoover Dam was hilarious.
I guess that's true, he was more hard headed than I remember. I guess I just got distracted by the voice. And yes, I thought the throwing scene was hilarious, too.
Joshua Graham? Okay, I thought the lore of the Burned Man was an interesting one. He had a really cool back story and he really seemed to have an influence on the Legion.
...and he's voiced by Keith Szarabajka, which is an instant win.
I never played Honest Hearts so I wouldn't know. Sorry.
Julie Farkas? I thought she was incredibly boring. At least Moira Brown had personality to her, Julie Farkas sounded like she was bored out of her god damn mind whenever she talked.
She is depressed, she hates what the NCR have caused and hates how nobody can ever get along. She is a symbol of hope that eventually the people of the Mojave and Nevada can live good lives once again, however, this is also a fault as it makes her too optimistic but that is balanced out by her cautiosness and lack of trust for others (except for the courier).
Okay, now that's an interesting way to look at the character. I still wasn't a fan, but that's a new way for me to look at her.
However, now I see her as a bit... sporadic, for want of a better word. It seemed that she was juggling those emotion far too much to pick only one. Granted, all of those emotions made sense, and a character with multiple emotions is a good character, but she seemed to have them quite frequently and too quick in succession.
Regis? You mean that one Khan that followed Benny when he shot you? Because that's all I remember of him.
Nope, Regis is Papa Khan's right hand man. His most trusted advisor and one of the very few Khans who does not hold a grudge against the NCR for what they did at Bitter Springs. Yeah sure he hates what happened, but at the same time he realises that can't let the past block the future.
Oh, that guy. Yeah, I guess he was fairly interesting, but if I didn't remember him from the start like some of the others, I doubt that's a good sign.
Mr. House? I guess he was pretty cool but he seemed too much like the Illusive Man from Mass Effect 2 and Andrew Ryan from Bioshock. Idealistic but mysterious. Interesting, but in no way original, I've seen this character too many times before.
Well I haven't played ME2 so I can't compare, however, I think it's unfair to compare him to Andrew Ryan. He was a great character but he was based on Objectivism and the teachings of Ayn Rand, Mr House is based on Howard Hughes. Howard Hughes was obsessed with planes and eventually became cut off from the outside world, House is obsessed with robots and advanced technology and also eventually becomes cut off from the real world. I thought he was a very interesting character that offered a lot of backstory as to how Vegas survived and how he, unlike the NCR, truly cares for New Vegas and treats it like his own child.
I like your comparison of House and Hues, but I still think Ryan shared some of the same traits. Rapture was Ryan's child, as well, just like Vegas was to House. Granted, House wasn't as objective as Ryan, but he still cared for Vegas and didn't want any outside influences like the NCR or the Legion.
McNamara? I thought he was contradicting. He wouldn't accept Veronica's proof or claims that the Brotherhood needed to evolve but he would side with the NCR? What?
One thing I loved about McNamara is that he is the complete opposite of Lyons from F3. The BoS in F3 were horrible, they were too perfect; altruistic knights-in-shining-armour that helped the poor and weak and sacrifice their men for the good of the wasteland. That isn't the same BoS from F1/2, what happened to the xenophobic conservative assholes from those games? McNamara went back to the good ol' BoS we loved to hate, he was an interesting character because he didn't know what to do, he was losing the war with the NCR and thought what he was doing was right because it was in the codex. He represents conformity and Veronica is his opposite. he cares for his people, but does not know how to care for them in a practical way and his is so unsure of himself that he will not even consider Veronica's proposal.
Also, just a side note but "I Could Make You Care" is one of my favourite quests.
Okay, this is something I really want to talk about: A lot of people hated the Brotherhood that was portrayed in Fallout 3. I can understand that, they were way too goody goody than they were in 1 and 2. However, they were doing much worse when they were trying to help the natives [small](up until the end, at least)[/small]. Lyons realized this, but still stuck to his gut, even when half of his soldiers left him and formed the Outcasts. That's all I wanted to say.
And where did you get the idea that that was the method for filtering out radiation? I may not know much about that, but I know it has to be more complex than that!
Nope, it's as simple as drilling some holes in the bottom of a bucket, placing some rocks at the bottom, then a cloth, some dirt, another cloth and then pourinf the water into it. The water will be filtered through the dirt and rocks and come out through the holes and into whatever device you have underneath (like a water bottle or another bucket).
I still have my doubts. Care to show your sources?
Don't tell me all of that actually made gameplay feel different. Sure, maybe companion wheels and perks and traits changed things up a little bit, hardcore mode did add a challenge or two, and a none luck based speech system was quite noticeable. But did that really affect the way you held and fired a gun? Sure, all of that was all nice and good, but it barely had an affect on the over all gameplay.
They were still there, also I forgot to mention low intelligence dialogue and different bullet types and creation. Yeah sure they're all mostly small and minor but there are more new things in New Vegas then there are in some other sequels. In Halo 2 the only significant difference was duel weapons and some multiplayer tweaks. However, when it comes to New Vegas everyone is always all "New vegas added nothing and is just glorified DLC".
This is so untrue in so many different ways.
Okay, looking back, this is where I was getting nervous that I was being condescending. If I was, I'm sorry.
Granted, there was much more added on to New Vegas than most sequels, but I still felt like I was playing the same game.
But I absolutely hated it when people said it was a glorified DLC, too.
evilneko said:
Why bother arguing with him? He's an Interplay Fallout diehard, probably a regular at NMA, and under no circumstances will be convinced. Subjective subject is subjective.
How do you know he's a diehard or a NMA regular? How do you know he won't be convinced? Granted, he seems to be really supportive of his argument, but so am I. I argue with him, because he still makes some really good points and is being civil about it. A little not so well known fact about me: I love to be proven wrong. It gives me an opportunity to learn more about the subject and how to learn how to defend my argument.
