Fallout Is Fallout: New Vegas a worthy Fallout game?

[Lhynn]

It was actually in replaying FO1 that I finally understood the strength of RTwP - the ability to seamlessly handle large battles while still allowing the player to stop, breathe, and tactically assess the situation.

Nigga do you even ToME?
Also underrail managed large fights fairly well.

 

[abnaxus]

 

[MilesBeyond]

Nigga do you even ToME?
Also underrail managed large fights fairly well.

True (I'm assuming that ToME was suppose to be ToEE, as I can't otherwise think of what it could be. Terror of Magma Elementals? Treants of Middle Earth? The other Mask of Eternity?). I meant it more as a criticism of FO1/2 than turn based in general. I personally prefer turn-based combat, but it comes down to how it's done. I think that in games where you only control one character, it's ill-advised.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

To some degree the Fallout 2 areas is actually pretty coherently connected once you delve into the political dependencies between all of the cities albeit it's not entirely logical.

Yeah, this is one aspect I feel people often underrate in Fallout 2, how well settlements (aside from San Francisco) were connected in terms of economy and politics (for a video game). There are some interesting power struggles where you get to choose a side and some quests span across several different settlements (such as the Jet Antidote one).

 

[Lhynn]

Nigga do you even ToME?
Also underrail managed large fights fairly well.

True (I'm assuming that ToME was suppose to be ToEE, as I can't otherwise think of what it could be. Terror of Magma Elementals? Treants of Middle Earth? The other Mask of Eternity?). I meant it more as a criticism of FO1/2 than turn based in general. I personally prefer turn-based combat, but it comes down to how it's done. I think that in games where you only control one character, it's ill-advised.

Tales of Maj Eyal. Try it, its free!

 

[an Administrator]

Also underrail managed large fights fairly well.

Because all enemy movements and animations are about 2X faster in Underrail compared to Fallout.

Fallout 2 tried a little to solve this problem( humanoid enemies always run during combat instead of walking) but it was still slow.

 

[pippin]

Also underrail managed large fights fairly well.

Because all enemy movements and animations are about 2X faster in Underrail compared to Fallout.

Fallout 2 tried a little to solve this problem( humanoid enemies always run during combat instead of walking) but it was still slow.

Fortunately Bethesda decided to include a speed slider for combat. They truly fixed the game in that sense

 

[Goral]

Cheat engine fixes this problem in F1 and F2.

 

[Mastermind]

Combat is better in FO 1. FPS with bullet time cheat < Tactical turn based combat, even if simplistic.

FO1's combat is shit. There's nothing shittier than single character TB. The death animations are the only thing that makes it playable. If I'm looking for a first person RPG NV would be in the top 10, if not 5. If I'm looking for a tactical RPG (not even specifically a TB one) Fallout 1 wouldn't even make the list.

World feels actually big. NV will always feel like a small sandbox you can traverse easily once you know it just a little bit.

World feels big when you start ouit. Once you learn the game and realize most of the map is empty it feels just as small as it actually is. Admittedly NV also feels pretty small but nowhere near as small as Fallout 1.

Quests are a wash and so is C&C

Not even close. NV has a ton of quests with plenty of C&C. The skills are also much better balanced instead of the shitshow in FO1.

FO 1 isn't as silly when it comes to the whacky stuff which is good. Heck NV is on par with FO2 when it comes to going overboard with stupid shit.

That's because FO1 is void of content in general.

 

[Repulsive]

Combat is better in FO 1. FPS with bullet time cheat < Tactical turn based combat, even if simplistic.

FO1's combat is shit. There's nothing shittier than single character TB. The death animations are the only thing that makes it playable. If I'm looking for a first person RPG NV would be in the top 10, if not 5. If I'm looking for a tactical RPG (not even specifically a TB one) Fallout 1 wouldn't even make the list.

World feels actually big. NV will always feel like a small sandbox you can traverse easily once you know it just a little bit.

World feels big when you start ouit. Once you learn the game and realize most of the map is empty it feels just as small as it actually is. Admittedly NV also feels pretty small but nowhere near as small as Fallout 1.

Quests are a wash and so is C&C

Not even close. NV has a ton of quests with plenty of C&C. The skills are also much better balanced instead of the shitshow in FO1.

FO 1 isn't as silly when it comes to the whacky stuff which is good. Heck NV is on par with FO2 when it comes to going overboard with stupid shit.

That's because FO1 is void of content in general.

The combat, which I found quite fun in FO 1 and 2 although can understand fully why others wouldn't, was a shitload more fun than just mindlessly running into a room and blowing everyone's head off or back peddling and shooting at enemies. It at least required some tact. The world in NV is just large empty land mass whereas Fallout 1's content is all made up of interaction in cities, about 5% of Fallout 1 is aimlessly exploring the world map while the other 95 is made up of doing other things whereas the vast majority of NV is exploring the rather empty, bland world. Just because FO 1 is a much smaller game in scale, doesn't mean that it is 'void of content', it wasn't meant to be a 80 hour + hiking simulator but a game that focuses on role playing and warranted multiple playthroughs. FO 1 paints a vastly more believable post apocalyptic world than NV, which was it's purpose as a role playing game.

 

[Mastermind]

The combat, which I found quite fun in FO 1 and 2 although can understand fully why others wouldn't, was a shitload more fun than just mindlessly running into a room and blowing everyone's head off or back peddling and shooting at enemies. It at least required some tact.

Combat in FO1 consisted of getting power armor and a plasma rifle without a single fight and then pulverizing everything in sight. You could also mix it up and trade the plasma rifle for a minigun. Otherwise if you don't know the game well enough it's all a matter of pumping weapon stats and reloading if your rolls are poor. Pretty much all my encounters when I was learning the game revolved around how lucky I got, and I rarely felt like a master strategist.

The world in NV is just large empty land mass whereas Fallout 1's content is all made up of interaction in cities, about 5% of Fallout 1 is aimlessly exploring the world map while the other 95 is made up of doing other things whereas the vast majority of NV is exploring the rather empty, bland world. Just because FO 1 is a much smaller game in scale, doesn't mean that it is 'void of content', it wasn't meant to be a 80 hour + hiking simulator but a game that focuses on role playing and warranted multiple playthroughs.

The number 1 appeal of post-apoc games for me is exploring the ruins of civilization. I don't want to explore the human condition or some other faggot shit like that, so I don't care about sitting in town and talking to people. And lol @ fallout 1 having interactive "cities". A camp with 5 people in it is not a city. The size of the actual human presence in NV easily rolls over Fallout's small, sparsely populated locations.

FO 1 paints a vastly more believable post apocalyptic world than NV, which was it's purpose as a role playing game.

More believable = more boring, especially for a post-apocalyptic game where I want to see some weird shit. In fact the weird shit is where Fallout shines, from the supercomputer to the brotherhood of steel. The most boring parts are the early game and the hub where you just deal with random humans, which I can do just fine in any genre. And it's not like Fallout made up for the lackluster setting with simulationist detail (nor could you really do that in a tb isometric game).

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

I believe in general yes.
Fallout 1 may have had a more consistent world (less material that did not fit, most of those were gags/easter eggs any way), and gave the idea that the world was much bigger (I doubt really that the Hub is just 4 or 5 maps big), but Fallout New Vegas really continued the world building of the previous games while not going to far with the pop culture references like Fallout 2 did sometimes.

I guess the big issue is of course the gameplay, going from isometric and turn based to FPP and realtime-with pauze, and of course that that some skills can only be used with what they are appropriate with rather than having access to them the whole time even if they could not always be used. (using Science on a random person would often not have much results)
I do think Obsidian's people did a good job with trying to integrate the skills more into FNV that Bethesda did, non speech skills such as weapon, sneak, science, opening more dialogue options. (of course the problem then sometimes was that you automatically know that these are the 'right' answer. A better system would have been that speech and skills would open more dialogue options as would learned information, but that there is still always another check that you need to pass sometimes when you try to persuade people or lie to them, without the optional hint that is is a persuasion check or a lie check. But that is probably to hard RPG for console gamers)

Are there flaws, definitely such as how dumb the AI of the enemies or your allies sometimes are, let alone their tactics. When it comes to combat it is unfortunate a bit of a half assed FPS.
There is of course the recycling of assets of Fallout 3 but that can not be helped due to the length of the development time.
And not all the factions got the development that was needed to make all sides a bit even when it comes to deciding the end game.

I guess it is sort of a 'spin off' to Fallout 1 and 2 because of the gameplay changes but it is more of a sequel than Fallout 3 and 4 which only have the name and some content that has been heavily re-imagined in common.

If this is the last Fallout by some of the original developers than it is at least a decent epilogue.

 

[Repulsive]

The combat, which I found quite fun in FO 1 and 2 although can understand fully why others wouldn't, was a shitload more fun than just mindlessly running into a room and blowing everyone's head off or back peddling and shooting at enemies. It at least required some tact.

Combat in FO1 consisted of getting power armor and a plasma rifle without a single fight and then pulverizing everything in sight. You could also mix it up and trade the plasma rifle for a minigun. Otherwise if you don't know the game well enough it's all a matter of pumping weapon stats and reloading if your rolls are poor. Pretty much all my encounters when I was learning the game revolved around how lucky I got, and I rarely felt like a master strategist.

The world in NV is just large empty land mass whereas Fallout 1's content is all made up of interaction in cities, about 5% of Fallout 1 is aimlessly exploring the world map while the other 95 is made up of doing other things whereas the vast majority of NV is exploring the rather empty, bland world. Just because FO 1 is a much smaller game in scale, doesn't mean that it is 'void of content', it wasn't meant to be a 80 hour + hiking simulator but a game that focuses on role playing and warranted multiple playthroughs.

The number 1 appeal of post-apoc games for me is exploring the ruins of civilization. I don't want to explore the human condition or some other faggot shit like that, so I don't care about sitting in town and talking to people. And lol @ fallout 1 having interactive "cities". A camp with 5 people in it is not a city. The size of the actual human presence in NV easily rolls over Fallout's small, sparsely populated locations.

FO 1 paints a vastly more believable post apocalyptic world than NV, which was it's purpose as a role playing game.

More believable = more boring, especially for a post-apocalyptic game where I want to see some weird shit. In fact the weird shit is where Fallout shines, from the supercomputer to the brotherhood of steel. The most boring parts are the early game and the hub where you just deal with random humans, which I can do just fine in any genre. And it's not like Fallout made up for the lackluster setting with simulationist detail (nor could you really do that in a tb isometric game).

Speaking of the first playthrough here, any game becomes sort of trivial when you know where all the good shit is off the bat, and if you do that every time you play the game, you're completely retarded, Fallout 1 and 2 were not made to be played with 'winning da gaem' being the sole focus, but getting immersed in the world. I enjoyed the combat because it feels like your character is progressing, you start off barely being able to hit the broad side of a barn to being a badass. As I said, that's subjective, I personally enjoyed it, certainly more so than aimlessly clicking on enemies till they dead or using the VATS system, the combat in NV was just too damn easy along with being easily exploitable, you could jump on a rock and kill the most powerful enemies in the game with ease or back peddle and use VATS. I found the sparse civilization's fine. Each location served it's purpose and your imagination could fill in the blanks, the interaction with the NPCs was handled incredibly well in FO 1, the writing was fantastic to say the least, which is another thing NV lacked for me for the most part. That's obviously not what they were aiming for with the first Fallout , although Fallout 2 is a lot more retarded (in a good way) in terms of crazy shit happening and humour but still manages to maintain a gritty post apocalyptic world in the process, where as NV had pretty much the opposite impact for me bar some of the humour.

 

[pippin]

I don't understand where this argument is going to be honest. In New Vegas you can also get immersed in the world, and in Fallout there are easy ways to exploit combat too. I guess this just boils down to what you really want. I do get the impression that most people who see New Vegas as an "unworthy" FO game just followed the designated path(s) and didn't explore beyond that. If any of you did that, then you missed like 3/4 of the game, easily. Or at least half of it. There's plenty of stuff to do and people to meet, and a lot of them aren't even related to the main quest or even to any marked quests.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

You have an entire area paying homage to Elvis Presley. That alone nearly equals half of FO2 whacky content.

One building you mean? Yeah I don't think that look was necessary. On the other hand the quests for the Kings' leader are not wacky at all. They basically function like a street gang with a common lifestyle.

His minions were all over the place though. Some of the quests were nice I give you that much but it really went overboard with Elvis Presley devotion of these nutjobs.

That's one faction that has logical (if stretched) reasons to all impersonate Presley. F2 on the other hand has Hubologists - a parody of scientologist that has no reason to have developed in a post-apocalyptic world, scorpions playing chess, actual ghosts, Yakuza in the midwest US, entire town styled after 20's Gansters for no reason whatsoever and a fucking Temple of Doom. If anything New Vegas could be seen as an attempt to make less wacky Fallout 2 and somehow redeem it's silly elements. New Vegas has mobsters like New Reno, but their existence is explained by House and his devotion to the pre-war Vegas, it's still a wacky amusement park in the middle of the Desert, but now it's explained how it sustains itself.

I am the first to admit that they went overboard with the whacky stuff in FO2 despite it being my favorite of the FO series and in fact many of my playthroughs ended just before going to San Francisco in part due to that reason.
I do not see how the Kings are even "logical". They are just about as logical as the mobsters in New Reno if you try to apply pure logic to it but it is clear that each city was supposed to show a very specific theme of "what if" scenarios.
To some degree the Fallout 2 areas is actually pretty coherently connected once you delve into the political dependencies between all of the cities albeit it's not entirely logical.

No. The Kings impersonate Elvis because they found a pre-war school of Elvis impersonators, thought it was a place of worship and decided to continue what they've assumed was a pre-war religion. On the other hand New Reno crooks had no clear reason to cosplay as mobsters. If there was for example a small cinema in New Reno showing only pre-war gangster movies or a Vault where all entertainment tapes were replaced by gangster movies and documentaries about prohibition the Mafia would make sense. But as the game stands now New Reno is more wacky and out of place than New Vegas, and of course nothing could explain fucking Yakuza.

 

[Mastermind]

Speaking of the first playthrough here, any game becomes sort of trivial when you know where all the good shit is off the bat,

NV didn't. The only other game I had that experience with was Morrowind, but Morrowind is piss easy even without cheese.

and if you do that every time you play the game, you're completely retarded, Fallout 1 and 2 were not made to be played with 'winning da gaem' being the sole focus, but getting immersed in the world.

It's not my job to immerse myself, it's not like I go out of my way to pull myself out of the world, and fallout 1 just doesn't have enough content to make immersion a selling point, since you realize pretty quickly the world is impossibly empty and the huge travel map is just for show.

I enjoyed the combat because it feels like your character is progressing, you start off barely being able to hit the broad side of a barn to being a badass. As I said, that's subjective, I personally enjoyed it, certainly more so than aimlessly clicking on enemies till they dead or using the VATS system, the combat in NV was just too damn easy along with being easily exploitable, you could jump on a rock and kill the most powerful enemies in the game with ease or back peddle and use VATS.

You feel like your character is progressing in just about every game in which your character does progress, including NV. In fallout you quickly go from sucking to expert marksman (another issue the single character philosophy causes, since you need enough points in the long term to maximize multiple skills you can dump 2-3 levels into guns and they'll carry you for most of the game), and the combat itself is simple and entirely based on luck once you have the required skill (or forget about the skill and save scum).

I found the sparse civilization's fine. Each location served it's purpose and your imagination could fill in the blanks, the interaction with the NPCs was handled incredibly well in FO 1, the writing was fantastic to say the least, which is another thing NV lacked for me for the most part. That's obviously not what they were aiming for with the first Fallout , although Fallout 2 is a lot more retarded (in a good way) in terms of crazy shit happening and humour but still manages to maintain a gritty post apocalyptic world in the process, where as NV had pretty much the opposite impact for me bar some of the humour.

This is all entirely subjective, I found the writing in fallout boring, the plot cliched and the setting derivative as fuck (I mean, they put orcs and zombies in it FFS, how unoriginal can you get to fill up a game that isn't even a fantasy game with fantasy staples). NV not only has superior writing, it has a shitton more of it to boot.

 

[Repulsive]

Speaking of the first playthrough here, any game becomes sort of trivial when you know where all the good shit is off the bat,

NV didn't. The only other game I had that experience with was Morrowind, but Morrowind is piss easy even without cheese.

and if you do that every time you play the game, you're completely retarded, Fallout 1 and 2 were not made to be played with 'winning da gaem' being the sole focus, but getting immersed in the world.

It's not my job to immerse myself, it's not like I go out of my way to pull myself out of the world, and fallout 1 just doesn't have enough content to make immersion a selling point, since you realize pretty quickly the world is impossibly empty and the huge travel map is just for show.

I enjoyed the combat because it feels like your character is progressing, you start off barely being able to hit the broad side of a barn to being a badass. As I said, that's subjective, I personally enjoyed it, certainly more so than aimlessly clicking on enemies till they dead or using the VATS system, the combat in NV was just too damn easy along with being easily exploitable, you could jump on a rock and kill the most powerful enemies in the game with ease or back peddle and use VATS.

You feel like your character is progressing in just about every game in which your character does progress, including NV. In fallout you quickly go from sucking to expert marksman (another issue the single character philosophy causes, since you need enough points in the long term to maximize multiple skills you can dump 2-3 levels into guns and they'll carry you for most of the game), and the combat itself is simple and entirely based on luck once you have the required skill (or forget about the skill and save scum).

I found the sparse civilization's fine. Each location served it's purpose and your imagination could fill in the blanks, the interaction with the NPCs was handled incredibly well in FO 1, the writing was fantastic to say the least, which is another thing NV lacked for me for the most part. That's obviously not what they were aiming for with the first Fallout , although Fallout 2 is a lot more retarded (in a good way) in terms of crazy shit happening and humour but still manages to maintain a gritty post apocalyptic world in the process, where as NV had pretty much the opposite impact for me bar some of the humour.

This is all entirely subjective, I found the writing in fallout boring, the plot cliched and the setting derivative as fuck (I mean, they put orcs and zombies in it FFS, how unoriginal can you get to fill up a game that isn't even a fantasy game with fantasy staples). NV not only has superior writing, it has a shitton more of it to boot.

Eh guess it's a pretty pointless argument then, my experiences of FO 1 and NV were nothing like that, I found the writing in Vegas average and to be instantly forgettable, hell, I couldn't even tell you a single characters name from the game right now off the top of my head and I've finished it a couple of times.

 

[Mastermind]

I finished Fallout 3 times and other than the Master I don't remember any of the characters' names. Admittedly I can barely remember a couple of names from NV. I remember Arcade Gannon even though I never used him as a follower, but can't remember the power fist chick's name even though I used her the most. Not sure remembering character names means anything.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Speaking of the first playthrough here, any game becomes sort of trivial when you know where all the good shit is off the bat,

NV didn't. The only other game I had that experience with was Morrowind, but Morrowind is piss easy even without cheese.

and if you do that every time you play the game, you're completely retarded, Fallout 1 and 2 were not made to be played with 'winning da gaem' being the sole focus, but getting immersed in the world.

It's not my job to immerse myself, it's not like I go out of my way to pull myself out of the world, and fallout 1 just doesn't have enough content to make immersion a selling point, since you realize pretty quickly the world is impossibly empty and the huge travel map is just for show.

I enjoyed the combat because it feels like your character is progressing, you start off barely being able to hit the broad side of a barn to being a badass. As I said, that's subjective, I personally enjoyed it, certainly more so than aimlessly clicking on enemies till they dead or using the VATS system, the combat in NV was just too damn easy along with being easily exploitable, you could jump on a rock and kill the most powerful enemies in the game with ease or back peddle and use VATS.

You feel like your character is progressing in just about every game in which your character does progress, including NV. In fallout you quickly go from sucking to expert marksman (another issue the single character philosophy causes, since you need enough points in the long term to maximize multiple skills you can dump 2-3 levels into guns and they'll carry you for most of the game), and the combat itself is simple and entirely based on luck once you have the required skill (or forget about the skill and save scum).

I found the sparse civilization's fine. Each location served it's purpose and your imagination could fill in the blanks, the interaction with the NPCs was handled incredibly well in FO 1, the writing was fantastic to say the least, which is another thing NV lacked for me for the most part. That's obviously not what they were aiming for with the first Fallout , although Fallout 2 is a lot more retarded (in a good way) in terms of crazy shit happening and humour but still manages to maintain a gritty post apocalyptic world in the process, where as NV had pretty much the opposite impact for me bar some of the humour.

This is all entirely subjective, I found the writing in fallout boring, the plot cliched and the setting derivative as fuck (I mean, they put orcs and zombies in it FFS, how unoriginal can you get to fill up a game that isn't even a fantasy game with fantasy staples). NV not only has superior writing, it has a shitton more of it to boot.

Eh guess it's a pretty pointless argument then, my experiences of FO 1 and NV were nothing like that, I found the writing in Vegas average and to be instantly forgettable, hell, I couldn't even tell you a single characters name from the game right now off the top of my head and I've finished it a couple of times.

Then it's possible that you have brain damage and should see a doctor immediately and I'm not talking about writing quality. Mr House is an NPC you are forced to meet, work with or kill, has a face displayed on fucking huge monitor and is mentioned pretty often by NPCs. It's a miracle to go through the game and not remember that there's that rich guy called Mr House running the city. Same goes for Ceasar, perhaps even more so.

 

[Roqua]

At some point I considered Roqua to be one of the most obnoxious posters on this site but then I realized that his chimpouts are incredibly entertaining.

I used to think you were an average rpgcodex retard. Someone who loves console games with lite rpg elements and hates real rpgs, lowbrow thinking, unoriginal, odd, socially retarded, overused and predictable regurgitated racist shtick, etc. The usual degenerate found here. Now I just pity you since you are so much less than that. You have nothing. You have failed at every endeavor you tried, you are below mediocre in every capacity that can be measured, you are unable to support yourself, find someone that likes you, fit in, the whole nine. And this is to such an extent that you have grasped on to the only thing that you think could possibly make you better than someone - your pigment. This is what you have. You have nothing but a light skin hue.

Your parents completely failed you in every way that counts. They passed on to you Cro-Magnon simian defective genes allowing you to know only failure and ridicule, but by the Grace of God they at least had the decency to make you white. You are so special. Not only do you post on a site dedicated to a genre you don't even like, but you can post on a site dedicated to a genre you don't like while being white! YIPPY!!!!!

That is it. This is all you are. Your only notable achievement in life is having really shitty defective simian genes that at least don't have any sun protecting pigment. You do it! You have so much to be proud of. The world is so much better off with you not committing suicide. Whatever you do, DO NOT KILL YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!

The world needs you so much. This site needs you so much. We need you so much. You are important by golly.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

At some point I considered Roqua to be one of the most obnoxious posters on this site but then I realized that his chimpouts are incredibly entertaining.

I used to think you were an average rpgcodex retard. Someone who loves console games with lite rpg elements and hates real rpgs, lowbrow thinking, unoriginal, odd, socially retarded, overused and predictable regurgitated racist shtick, etc. The usual degenerate found here. Now I just pity you since you are so much less than that. You have nothing. You have failed at every endeavor you tried, you are below mediocre in every capacity that can be measured, you are unable to support yourself, find someone that likes you, fit in, the whole nine. And this is to such an extent that you have grasped on to the only thing that you think could possibly make you better than someone - your pigment. This is what you have. You have nothing but a light skin hue.

Your parents completely failed you in every way that counts. They passed on to you Cro-Magnon simian defective genes allowing you to know only failure and ridicule, but by the Grace of God they at least had the decency to make you white. You are so special. Not only do you post on a site dedicated to a genre you don't even like, but you can post on a site dedicated to a genre you don't like while being white! YIPPY!!!!!

That is it. This is all you are. Your only notable achievement in life is having really shitty defective simian genes that at least don't have any sun protecting pigment. You do it! You have so much to be proud of. The world is so much better off with you not committing suicide. Whatever you do, DO NOT KILL YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!

The world needs you so much. This site needs you so much. We need you so much. You are important by golly.

Haha, great post. I really appreciate another of your outrages that is totally authentic and not exaggerated for comedic effect. I rate it 9/10 and it's a strong contender to be on my "Raqua's top 10 quality RPG Codex rageposts". Please keep-up the good work.

 

[shihonage]

Every now and then I have this impulse to give FO:NV another shot, and then I run it, and it all looks dire and homogenous, like an inside look into Todd Howard's imagination, and I get overwhelmed with a sense of dread and human mortality, and then I fight it and try to install some mods, but there are so many potential things to "keep in mind", and I don't know which mods are not buggy, etc etc, and they don't seem to do enough to fix the UI and graphics anyway, and then I just uninstall the whole thing.

 

[Repulsive]

Every now and then I have this impulse to give FO:NV another shot, and then I run it, and it all looks dire and homogenous, like an inside look into Todd Howard's imagination, and I get overwhelmed with a sense of dread and human mortality, and then I fight it and try to install some mods, but there are so many potential things to "keep in mind", and I don't know which mods are not buggy, etc etc, and they don't seem to do enough to fix the UI and graphics anyway, and then I just uninstall the whole thing.

That exact thing happened to me today lol, downloaded it and couldn't play for more than 2 hours, eh, had my fun with it anyway.

 

[Endemic]

<snip>

Have you tried STALKER?

 

[toran]

You have an entire area paying homage to Elvis Presley. That alone nearly equals half of FO2 whacky content.

One building you mean? Yeah I don't think that look was necessary. On the other hand the quests for the Kings' leader are not wacky at all. They basically function like a street gang with a common lifestyle.

His minions were all over the place though. Some of the quests were nice I give you that much but it really went overboard with Elvis Presley devotion of these nutjobs.

That's one faction that has logical (if stretched) reasons to all impersonate Presley. F2 on the other hand has Hubologists - a parody of scientologist that has no reason to have developed in a post-apocalyptic world, scorpions playing chess, actual ghosts, Yakuza in the midwest US, entire town styled after 20's Gansters for no reason whatsoever and a fucking Temple of Doom. If anything New Vegas could be seen as an attempt to make less wacky Fallout 2 and somehow redeem it's silly elements. New Vegas has mobsters like New Reno, but their existence is explained by House and his devotion to the pre-war Vegas, it's still a wacky amusement park in the middle of the Desert, but now it's explained how it sustains itself.

Considering that the scilons have bunkers set up in preparation for nuclear holocaust, it very much seems like a faction that would develop in the postapoc world.