Fallout Is Fallout: New Vegas a worthy Fallout game?

[Black Angel]

FO1 > FO:NV > FO2

there aren't any others worth mentioning

Deep, deep down inside I actually kind of hold this view, with now Fallout 1.5: Resurrection being in a tie with New Vegas, simply by virtue of having party banter and how companions were handled in general. Sure, there's only very few of them, but party banter alone made it a tie, if not a bit better.

Also, I personally hold FO1 as THE best Fallout, simply, because it ended with the protagonist turning his back to the camera and walking away, with Maybe by the Ink Spots playing in the background. What I mean by this, FO1 managed to give an such an excellent bitter-sweet ending that no longer evoked by even Fallout 2. Fallout 1.5 did an amazing job with its ending and I'll Never Smile Again by the Ink Spots playing in the background, fits so well just like how Maybe fits with FO1 ending.

 

[Kev Inkline]

FO2 gets a lot of flak for its pop culture references, I for one find them funny. Actually, I think it really boils down to the way it represented (2D, no voice, 3D voice acting): e.g.

Velvet Elvis in FO 2 spaceship remains - funny detail. The King speaking some kind of pseudo Memphis dialect in FNV - downright irritating.

 

[Diggfinger]

But why did you play on lowest difficulty?

Diggfinger

I of course play the game on highest difficulty (duh). Only lowered it to test of these shit-bugs would become at least slightly balanced (....and f....fun?) to fight. They didn't. So my conclusion holds: they can get ass raped by pinapple-dicked demons.

Rest assured, good sir KILLER BEAR that I immediately proceeded with increasing the difficulty cuz that's how I roll
:australia:

 

[Prime Junta]

FO1 was a golden game. It was just the right length, breadth, and scope, the themes and atmosphere and story all reinforced one another as well as the gameplay, and the whole thing held together beautifully. Sure, it's not perfect but then nothing is, but it lived up to the "more than the sum of its parts" cliché. And yeah, oh, that ending, after all the possibilities of the ... other ending.

FO2 on the other hand didn't add anything much of value. It was just bigger. The freedom was still there, the atmosphere was still there, but the coherence was gone, and there were way too many, way too obvious ways to break it and kill the fun.

FO:NV managed to combine about 80% of what's good about FO1 with about 95% of what's good about FO2, while eliminating almost all that wasn't so good about FO2, as well as fixing a few holes FO1 had as well. Purely on its own merits it would be FO1's equal, but standing as it is on the shoulders of that giant, the "been there, done that" makes it lose out. And yeah I do think it suffers from the translation to FP/TP 3D.

 

[Black Angel]

FO2 gets a lot of flak for its pop culture references, I for one find them funny. Actually, I think it really boils down to the way it represented (2D, no voice, 3D voice acting): e.g.

I think it's because there's just way, WAY too much pop culture references in FO2. But yeah, I guess it's fair enough to say the way it's represented that makes it get flaked. New Vegas had quite a lot of references, and I think they were quite neat since they were represented that way. Fortunately, most of them were also barred by a trait, so that helps a lot.

 

[aweigh]

fo2 also had a lot, lot more text overall than fo1 and unlike fo1 not all of it was good.

 

[Roqua]

Any sort of UI would get the job done. But there are UIs that get it done well and are meant for civilized people who want GUIs optimized for civilized PC use, and then the shitty console port UIs made for savages who use controllers and are not smart enough to be civilized.

I said it early in this thread: the DarnUI literally changes how big the fonts are (and the fonts used), and it makes the UI much better to look at.

You are tallking as if the UI is a mess that simply doesn't work in any way or form.

Is it perfect? No, but it's not a piece of shit either.

If this isn't instantly apparent and obvious to you, and you really needed it to be explained, guess what group you belong to? Now you reply with Yabba Dabba Doo bleatings, ugga booga et al, and this will be confirmed and like most savages you are probably happy being a dumb animal because ignorance is bliss and being civilized enough to fit into a modern society with manners, tact, common courtesy, thinking, reasoning, considering others, etc, is just too much for all your children, retards, and monkey savages to handle.

Yabba Dabba Go Fuck Yourself.

Your bleatings are below the level of the average most monkey savages infesting this site. DarnUI changes nothing that made the UI savage to begin with. Does it change how the UI functions? Does it work efficiently and let you hotkey common functions? Does it give the game a real inventory or equipment screen? No, it changes it from a savage console UI to a savage console UI with different font. Who does that help?

And why would anyone buy a game that has such a shitty UI for civilized people to begin with? Oh yeah, I covered that already. Savages, monkey lowbrow cretins of filth and retarded helmet wearing, window licking, sock shaking demagoguery.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

I don't really think that people buy games based mostly on UI.

 

[AwesomeButton]

I don't really think that people buy games based mostly on UI.

You don't understand, this is Roleplaying Through UI. C&C and solid worldbuilding can't fool the proficient eye of the expert that the game is not actually shit.

 

[Repulsive]

Given that you start the game with choices changing quest outcomes and faction allegiances at Goodsprings, the prison thing, and the rocket area, it sounds like you have a completely arbitrary standard that passes what FO1 does as 'choice' and what FNV does as 'not choice'. Meh.

Yeah, be a douchebag or don't be a douchebag, nothing inbetween, my experience with the 'role playing' of NV.

How is it any different from Fallout 1? What would count for "inbetween"?

There's a lot of examples especially in FO 2, FO 1 was a more straight forward game that warranted multiple playthroughs with differing class builds having a drastic effect on how your game played out and the options available. New Vegas lacked a feeling of having consequences to the choices you made, as I said the only real damn consequence I had in all of my playthroughs of Vegas was being tracked down by an NCR patrol randomly. The world New Vegas has lacks the immersion FO 1 and 2's worlds had by a vast margin. The writing was mediocre on average and entertaining at it's absolute best which was unfortunately rare. I played Vegas as a story driven action game and had most of my fun in the DLCs, those pretty much saved the game for me. I do intend on playing through it again actually thanks to this discussion, been years since I have and maybe will have a different opinion of it.

 

[agentorange]

FO 1 was a more straight forward game that warranted multiple playthroughs with differing class builds having a drastic effect on how your game played out and the options available.

Examples of this? Other than a high speech and int build giving you more dialogue options. I've played through FO1 a whole lot and character builds don't change much other than how combat encounters play out.

 

[pippin]

New Vegas lacked a feeling of having consequences to the choices you made

You probably weren't paying attention then. New Vegas is probably the only Fallout game where almost everything you do matters in the game and in the endings. The rest of the games still register most of the major factions and locations, while New Vegas register stuff like Goodsprings, the Vault taken by the NCR prisoners and etc.
The order in which you did stuff also altered stuff in the game. Hint: you don't have to go south every time you start a new game.

 

[Repulsive]

FO 1 was a more straight forward game that warranted multiple playthroughs with differing class builds having a drastic effect on how your game played out and the options available.

Examples of this? Other than a high speech and int build giving you more dialogue options. I've played through FO1 a whole lot and character builds don't change much other than how combat encounters play out.

Mainly speech and int which affected outcomes of a situation and gave you broader options to completing a lot of quests. NV just had a bland world I couldn't give a damn about, even if tried. The characters were instantly forgettable save for a few and the game itself becomes a chore when you try do everything. The DLCs I found to be great though.

 

[Repulsive]

I'd be lying if I said that I didn't have a blast playing through it, it just doesn't hit the nail on the head when comparing it to the original 2 games for me, I don't really like comparing it to the originals because they're completely different games and I enjoyed it for what it was. I'm down to replay it though.

 

[pippin]

I think the problem with c&c in New Vegas is that most of the stuff you do has subtle effects. The open world nature of the game is also problematic, which is why they felt it was needed to introduce so many NPCs telling you to go sout in Goodsprings. In Fallout 1 particularly, the choices you made has always big consequences, and most of them were immediate.

In older FOs= you did something, you fucked up or you won the game
In New Vegas= you did something, and 20 hours later you find an npc that tells you s/he felt the changes you've done in the world.

The faction system is more obvious and always present. But there's a wide gap between the c&c of the factions and the c&c of the rest of the world.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Given that you start the game with choices changing quest outcomes and faction allegiances at Goodsprings, the prison thing, and the rocket area, it sounds like you have a completely arbitrary standard that passes what FO1 does as 'choice' and what FNV does as 'not choice'. Meh.

Yeah, be a douchebag or don't be a douchebag, nothing inbetween, my experience with the 'role playing' of NV.

How is it any different from Fallout 1? What would count for "inbetween"?

There's a lot of examples especially in FO 2, FO 1 was a more straight forward game that warranted multiple playthroughs with differing class builds having a drastic effect on how your game played out and the options available. New Vegas lacked a feeling of having consequences to the choices you made, as I said the only real damn consequence I had in all of my playthroughs of Vegas was being tracked down by an NCR patrol randomly. The world New Vegas has lacks the immersion FO 1 and 2's worlds had by a vast margin. The writing was mediocre on average and entertaining at it's absolute best which was unfortunately rare. I played Vegas as a story driven action game and had most of my fun in the DLCs, those pretty much saved the game for me. I do intend on playing through it again actually thanks to this discussion, been years since I have and maybe will have a different opinion of it.

I can't really argue with you because you talk more about feel of the game, than anything concrete. Can you point to any examples of things C&C wise that F1 did and NW didn't?

 

[Repulsive]

Given that you start the game with choices changing quest outcomes and faction allegiances at Goodsprings, the prison thing, and the rocket area, it sounds like you have a completely arbitrary standard that passes what FO1 does as 'choice' and what FNV does as 'not choice'. Meh.

Yeah, be a douchebag or don't be a douchebag, nothing inbetween, my experience with the 'role playing' of NV.

How is it any different from Fallout 1? What would count for "inbetween"?

There's a lot of examples especially in FO 2, FO 1 was a more straight forward game that warranted multiple playthroughs with differing class builds having a drastic effect on how your game played out and the options available. New Vegas lacked a feeling of having consequences to the choices you made, as I said the only real damn consequence I had in all of my playthroughs of Vegas was being tracked down by an NCR patrol randomly. The world New Vegas has lacks the immersion FO 1 and 2's worlds had by a vast margin. The writing was mediocre on average and entertaining at it's absolute best which was unfortunately rare. I played Vegas as a story driven action game and had most of my fun in the DLCs, those pretty much saved the game for me. I do intend on playing through it again actually thanks to this discussion, been years since I have and maybe will have a different opinion of it.

I can't really argue with you because you talk more about feel of the game, than anything concrete. Can you point to any examples of things C&C wise that F1 did and NW didn't?

It may have been as Pippin just said, sure there were missions which you could choose A or B but hardy any felt like it had any impact on the game at all whereas in Fallout 1 & 2 you notice them almost immediately. Fallout 1 had A or B (sometimes C and D) choices which branched into more choices to make from the choice you picked. Those are the reasons for the most part that I found Vegas to be mediocre as a role playing game, the writing and world weren't up to par for my taste for the most part, I got the most immersion out of aimlessly exploring rather than interactions with the NPCs which is vital in creating a proper Fallout game in my opinion. I really need to replay it though, been years.

 

[Endemic]

Is there actually a lot of branching C&C in Fallout 1 beyond the main quest? It seems to me you either lock yourself out of content (BOS, Followers, Razors), kill people for the lulz (Khans, Gizmo, the Hub gangsters) or get an alternate game over (Super Mutants). The faction interplay is rather limited, and the ending slides don't even work properly without modding. FO2 had its flaws, but it was substantially greater in scope.

I've played through FO1 a whole lot and character builds don't change much other than how combat encounters play out.

There are basically 3 main ways to get through FO1, as exemplified by the 3 premade characters: speech (Albert), combat (Max), and stealth (Natalia). Most players end up using a hybrid of speech and combat. Stealth is useful in a few places (Necropolis, the LA Vault, Military base) although you can use a disguise for two of those.

 

[Sigourn]

Does it give the game a real inventory or equipment screen?

what did he mean by this?

No, it changes it from a savage console UI to a savage console UI with different font. Who does that help?

A lot of people, because one of the biggest problems with NV's UI is that it uses an already small Pip-Boy screen with HUGE fonts that make looking for things in the UI and absolute shit.

How can you even dislike this game's UI so much? Reassign buttons? What the hell are you talking about? Are you using some weird button combination that gives you epic roleplaying powers I have never heard about? New Vegas has to be the only game where I don't feel like remapping the keyboard because it just works.

And why would anyone buy a game that has such a shitty UI for civilized people to begin with? Oh yeah, I covered that already. Savages, monkey lowbrow cretins of filth and retarded helmet wearing, window licking, sock shaking demagoguery.

I hate Arcanum's UI, I think it is a piece of shit, but the reason I don't play Arcanum has nothing to do with the UI itself. Gothic would be a better example, I didn't play the game because I hated the controls until I got past that.

If I got past Gothic's controls, you have to be a certified :ehue: to be unable to get past New Vegas' UI.

Lastly, on an unrelated but sort of related note: New Vegas' quests >>>>>>> FO1's quests, in both reactivity and choices. Isometric New Vegas would be robbery.

 

[Roqua]

Does it give the game a real inventory or equipment screen?

what did he mean by this?

No, it changes it from a savage console UI to a savage console UI with different font. Who does that help?

A lot of people, because one of the biggest problems with NV's UI is that it uses an already small Pip-Boy screen with HUGE fonts that make looking for things in the UI and absolute shit.

How can you even dislike this game's UI so much? Reassign buttons? What the hell are you talking about? Are you using some weird button combination that gives you epic roleplaying powers I have never heard about? New Vegas has to be the only game where I don't feel like remapping the keyboard because it just works.

And why would anyone buy a game that has such a shitty UI for civilized people to begin with? Oh yeah, I covered that already. Savages, monkey lowbrow cretins of filth and retarded helmet wearing, window licking, sock shaking demagoguery.

I hate Arcanum's UI, I think it is a piece of shit, but the reason I don't play Arcanum has nothing to do with the UI itself. Gothic would be a better example, I didn't play the game because I hated the controls until I got past that.

If I got past Gothic's controls, you have to be a certified :ehue: to be unable to get past New Vegas' UI.

Lastly, on an unrelated but sort of related note: New Vegas' quests >>>>>>> FO1's quests, in both reactivity and choices. Isometric New Vegas would be robbery.

How old are you? Why did you ask others the first question, and then ask me the rest. Wouldn't I be the foremost authority of what I meant by a statement I made?

 

[Repulsive]

At the end of the day, I'm sure we can all admit that New Vegas was a mediocre game at best, better than Bethesturds pieces of shit but still mediocre.

 

[Lemming42]

Only if you'd call Fallout 1 and 2 mediocre too.

 

[Repulsive]

Only if you'd call Fallout 1 and 2 mediocre too.

Yeah they were clearly mediocre, bland as shit, had mediocre writing, 99% choices that had no impact on the games world, no art direction, no memorable characters to speak of, boring world and were a chore to play through.

 

[Repulsive]

Fuck you Drax

 

[hoverdog]

Joined:
Aug 14, 2016