*redacted*

[nocharacter]

I decided to finish a play through of this I started 6 months or so ago recently and I chose to play through some of the DLC I bought but never played. I started with Honest Hearts because I wanted to find out what happened to the "burned man" because I felt they built him up well in NV, but I didn't make it 3 hours into Honest Hearts before I put the game down and decided to never play it again.

It felt amateurish in every way; Graham was extremely underwhelming, the world was boring, only having patches of Tribals and animals to kill, and the way they made the main map meant a lot of trekking around rivers to follow a certain path they wanted you to travel. There wasn't anything of interest I found to explore in my time playing through it. It was awful. I may have not been in the right mindset for it but I found nothing of value in it whatsoever. I had 1 or 2 good playthroughs of NV when it first came out and when I think back on the game I'll try to remember those instead of Honest Hearts...

 

[jagged-jimmy]

I thought Honest Hearts was shit, but that changed after i played the other DLCs. Dead Money would be the best, if not for the popamole labyrinths everywhere.

 

[Gozma]

I'm not sure the degree more content would make the Legion-as-conceived better. Like the concept behind them is that they have a genuinely alien nature and that it really is a big perfectly indoctrinated slave army that is entirely an instrument of Caesar's will (in a case of serious Bad Writing, there is obviously no place for some "talented outsider" archetype like the PC in this either, which is probably why the legion-as-playable-faction was poorly implemented as a vestigial nub). There is not supposed to be an incipient aristocracy, familiar "human nature" relationships or behavior, other loci of influence, factionalism, or anything like that to be fleshed out. The Annotated Legion that has been pieced together from Sawyer's forum posts and shit can't really support any more depth because it's a big monolith, more places would just be more places for the same Legion archetypes to be.

 

[Commissar Draco]

Thought the same; Legion was doing so well it doesn't needed my help; NCR on the other hand would loose without PC running around and fixing her multiple F... ups... Which sounds gay but results in many varied quests for you to solve which is ironicly in RPG.

 

[shihonage]

It never ceases to amaze me, the excellent job Fallout 3 did of lowering people's expectations to the point where FO:NV would seem like a good game in comparison. An unintentional master move by Bethesda.

 

[2house2fly]

The gameplay isn't spectacular(though I find it entertaining enough) but as far as the writing and setting, I've yet to play a game that's New Vegas's equal. It's the first time a game's really made me feel like I was in a world that would get on with its business whether I was there or not, rather than a theme park for my enjoyment. That's enough for me to forgive the frequent crashes, unhelpful crafting interface and several other issues; your mileage may vary obviously.

in a case of serious Bad Writing, there is obviously no place for some "talented outsider" archetype like the PC in this either, which is probably why the legion-as-playable-faction was poorly implemented as a vestigial nub

I don't know; Lanius is basically a talented outsider, and the Courier could end up enjoying similar levels of status after their actions in the Mojave. Or they could fit in well among the Frumentarii, who seem to be given a lot of leeway to do what they see fit- Ulysses left the Legion, then returned after God knows how long with no apparent issue. He's even allowed to keep his dreads!

 

[DalekFlay]

99% of this game's flaws are rooted in the engine, IMO. Obsidian did about as good a job as possible at making a Fallout game in this engine and style. It's a masterpiece of doing the best you can with what you have.

I don't disagree with many of the criticisms, but I still think it's a great game.

 

[shihonage]

99% of this game's flaws are rooted in the engine, IMO. Obsidian did about as good a job as possible at making a Fallout game in this engine and style. It's a masterpiece of doing the best you can with what you have.

I don't disagree with many of the criticisms, but I still think it's a great game.

I would've forgiven all the engine problems is the world was even remotely engaging or immersive, if NPCs talked like people instead of Asperger automatons you find in every other game. I would've forgiven the shit combat, shit inventory and shit hiking simulation if the universe seemed alive and feasible somehow, because such a universe is so very rare in games.

But such a world wasn't to be found in this game, either. It's a "gamey" world that cannot possibly be taken seriously, and falls apart when subjected to slightest inquiry. Yes, it is less nonsensical than Fallout 3, but that is not a compliment but rather a lesser degree of insult.

 

[DalekFlay]

I would've forgiven all the engine problems is the world was even remotely engaging or immersive, if NPCs talked like people instead of Asperger automatons you find in every other game. I would've forgiven the shit combat, shit inventory and shit hiking simulation if the universe seemed alive and feasible somehow, because such a universe is so very rare in games.

But such a world wasn't to be found in this game, either. It's a "gamey" world that cannot possibly be taken seriously, and falls apart when subjected to slightest inquiry. Yes, it is less nonsensical than Fallout 3, but that is not a compliment but rather a lesser degree of insult.

Yeah well I don't agree with any of that, really. It's not realistic, but neither were Fallout and Fallout 2. It makes internal sense, and the writing was excellent.

 

[shihonage]

Yeah well I don't agree with any of that, really. It's not realistic, but neither were Fallout and Fallout 2. It makes internal sense, and the writing was excellent.

I wrote essays on the subject both here and on NMA. I'll just say this - if you use Fallout 2 as a model, Fallout: New Vegas will certainly seem palatable. However Fallout 2 wasn't aligned with Tim Cain's vision of Fallout, the only thing that held it together was the engine and content density, it suffered from too many cooks, and I could barely stand the game.

As for internal sense, the doctor which has all the time in the world for you and no other patients, and then retarded cowboy robots killed FO:NV immediately at the start.

The environment of USSR where I grew up was certainly better off in all ways than the world of New Vegas, but if we had such a robot running around, regardless of its defense ability, it would've been ran over by a bulldozer, disassembled for parts and never seen again. We rejoiced at getting free paper, never mind electronic parts.

And there's much more blatant in-your-face nonsense the game is packed with, such as the ability to make a robot, which should neither exist as a whole, nor would any sane humans listen to it... town sheriff. Or the clinics with friendly doctors and no lines. In a harsh outdoor environment with deathclaws and other vicious crap running around, such clinics should be filled with patients, and doctors should be bitter and scroungy. No such luck.

Prostitutes standing around empty streets. All settlements strangely scarce on people.

Or the waste of power on cosmetics like neon signs, while in such an environment power should always go first toward constantly improving quality of life, growth, defense, charging weaponry, and there should never be quite enough of it. The luxury concept of "New Vegas" doesn't fit into a post-apocalyptic world, and even into a post-post-apocalyptic one. It does fit well, however, into the "anything goes" lore of Fallout 2. But then again, so does anything. That game broke the 4th wall at every possible occasion.

FO:NV was a theme park, make no mistake about it. It took the big mediocre world of Fallout 2 and faithfully continued it, but that is no crowning achievement.

 

[DalekFlay]

I wrote essays on the subject both here and on NMA. I'll just say this - if you use Fallout 2 as a model, Fallout: New Vegas will certainly seem palatable. However Fallout 2 wasn't aligned with Tim Cain's vision of Fallout, the only thing that held it together was the engine and content density, it suffered from too many cooks, and I could barely stand the game.

Well, I prefer Fallout 2, so we're likely at an impasse here. I don't really care what Tim Cain's vision was. I mean he made an excellent game with Fallout, and is a talented man, but the new blood took the sequels a new direction and that's fine. The change train never stops, no matter how much you want to hold on to or emulate the past.

I enjoyed Fallout 2 a lot, it's less real and more theme park, as you say later, but that's not a bad thing for everyone.

FO:NV was a theme park, make no mistake about it. It took the big mediocre world of Fallout 2 and faithfully continued it, but that is no crowning achievement.

There's a lot of people like you who think of these realistic logic issues and get irritated the game doesn't emulate your vision. Who focus on the face X town has no water supply or the prostitutes have no one to fuck because of engine limitations. I've never been one of you, I can strap in for creative expression that doesn't emulate real world science or social politics. I can imagine the game world I am exploring as a little more robust or good-looking than the developers were able to pull off. In fact, I would say that imagination is critical, to one degree or another, to enjoying the RPG genre in general.

 

[shihonage]

Well, I prefer Fallout 2, so we're likely at an impasse here. I don't really care what Tim Cain's vision was. I mean he made an excellent game with Fallout, and is a talented man, but the new blood took the sequels a new direction and that's fine. The change train never stops, no matter how much you want to hold on to or emulate the past.

This argument is very close to "isometric is an outdated technology, first-person is the new shit" argument that came from many when Fallout 3 came out. It's based on a fallacy that associates any change, however unexamined, with improvement.

Nevermind that Bethesda released a 3D post-apocalyptic FPS with talking heads and vehicles, polygonal enemies and realtime lightsourcing, which captured the atmosphere of source material and was far more immersive to me than "RPG" Fallout 3... in 1995, 2 years before Fallout 1 came out.

Oops.

Fallout was a new direction. It was a coherently designed, immersive world (moreso than most others, okay?), which is always a rarity in RPGs and should be treasured.

Fallout 2 was an old direction. It took the easy way out of being a series of disconnected theme park attractions, lulz, and filler content. It is far easier to design a world like Fallout 2 than the world of Fallout 1, and it is done in far more games. Fallout 2's only distinguishing strength at that point was Tim Cain's engine powering it, as well as the loose use of Fallout 1 lore that gave it some inertia.

Fallout: New Vegas followed the same route. The fact that it embraced the DLC model, which cannot (and does not) work with an open-world game like this, further accenuated that the developers have lost sight of what made the franchise special.

Adding DLCs to Fallout is like adding tunnel-like growths spurting outward on the edges of "big map". They may have rudimentary and usually in-your-face non-linearity inside them, but they are alien entities, not integrated with the rest of the world, because the world wasn't designed with them in mind, and neither were the DLCs that preceded them. They are the definition of "whack theme parks" that Fallout 2 has irreversibly injected in the franchise, and this injection of lulz is also the reason why we have robot cowboy sheriffs now.

There are many people asking in which order they should play the DLCs in a Fallout game as not to break the game, and there are "guides" on the subject. That's what the franchise has degraded to. Don't be fooled by shiny polygons - the franchise has moved indeed - not forward, but backward in time.

 

[DalekFlay]

This argument is very close to "isometric is an outdated technology, first-person is the new shit" argument that came from many when Fallout 3 came out. It's based on a fallacy that associates any change, however unexamined, with improvement.

I didn't say or imply anything of the kind. What I did was disassociate change with quality altogether. It's an inevitability that must be faced for good or ill, and can go either way.

Fallout 2 was an old direction. It took the easy way out of being a series of disconnected theme park attractions, lulz, and filler content. It is far easier to design a world like Fallout 2 than the world of Fallout 1, and it is done in far more games. Fallout 2's only distinguishing strength at that point was Tim Cain's engine powering it, as well as the loose use of Fallout 1 lore that gave it some inertia.

I think you dramatically exaggerate the difference. There was a tone difference and design change, yes, but not to the radical degree you are suggesting. The locations were well connected, the game world consistent... the NCR, Vault City and the rest were politically and socially connected and dependent. That kind of faction play is one of my biggest loves in RPGs.

Yes, it went for the "wouldn't it be cool if we had an X!" design path, but again, this is not an automatic negative for most people as long as it is handled well, which Black Isle did.

Fallout: New Vegas followed the same route. The fact that it embraced the DLC model, which cannot (and does not) work with an open-world game like this, further accenuated that the developers have lost sight of what made the franchise special. There are many people asking in which order they should play the DLCs in a Fallout game as not to break the game, and there are "guides" on the subject. That's what the franchise has degraded to. Don't be fooled by shiny polygons - the franchise has moved indeed - not forward, but backward in time.

You can completely ignore all of New Vegas' DLC and have a complete and arguably better experience. I don't see how it is at all relevant, outside of butthurt from people who hate DLC on sight.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Fallout: New Vegas followed the same route. The fact that it embraced the DLC model, which cannot (and does not) work with an open-world game like this, further accenuated that the developers have lost sight of what made the franchise special.

Well, according to you they have been losing sight of that since the second game.

Fallout 1 is the best franchise ever.

 

[shihonage]

I didn't say or imply anything of the kind. What I did was disassociate change with quality altogether. It's an inevitability that must be faced for good or ill, and can go either way.

Ehh. The world of the game can indeed evolve, and so can technology, but superior design is not something to be discarded and left "in the old dusty past". It is to be recognized, embraced, studied, and improved upon. Your statements clearly go to the contrary of this understanding, which is what I pointed out.

Not all change is good, or for that matter, "inevitable". Discarding good ideas is certainly not inevitable, it is just a stupid choice made out of ignorance.

I think you dramatically exaggerate the difference. There was a tone difference and design change, yes, but not to the radical degree you are suggesting. The locations were well connected, the game world consistent... the NCR, Vault City and the rest were politically and socially connected and dependent. That kind of faction play is one of my biggest loves in RPGs.

From the mouths of babes:

I don't remember the specific details of my plans for Fallout 2, but I do remember playing the game and seeing it was different from the storyline I had proposed for it. I think my biggest disappointment with the game is that each area was made in almost complete isolation from the others. There was no over-arching theme and no attempt to make sure the different areas were cohesive. It felt like a lot of Fallout-y areas, placed adjacently and connected with a storyline. Those areas were individually well-done, but they suffered from the lack of a strong central design.

GB: Looking back, is there anything about the development of Fallout 2 that you would have liked to change? Was any content removed due to cost or time constraints that you would have liked to see implemented?

Chris: Less in-jokes, it's a pretty immature way to design a game

 

[DalekFlay]

Ehh. The world of the game can indeed evolve, and so can technology, but superior design is not something to be discarded and left "in the old dusty past". It is to be recognized, embraced, studied, and improved upon. Your statements clearly go to the contrary of this understanding, which is what I pointed out.

You can write that as smugly as you want, nothing I said even remotely insinuated what you are applying to it. I never said old is bad, I never said good ideas should be thrown out. What I said was the world changes around you whether it's for good or not. I personally would take back 90% of video game industry changes since the year 2000, but I can't do that. I have to adapt or move on.

From the mouths of babes:

And I disagree with him. Simple as that. He's not a fucking god.

The plot of Fallout 2 revolves not just around the Envlave threat but also the battle for supremecy in the region, same as in New Vegas. That kind of location and faction interaction is something I find extremely interesting. You and Cain can disregard it and act like every location was a microcosm, but you're wrong.

I more or less agree with you and him about the humor, but it's not that frequent and doesn't harm the game much at all.

 

[shihonage]

You can write that as smugly as you want, nothing I said even remotely insinuated what you are applying to it. I never said old is bad, I never said good ideas should be thrown out. What I said was the world changes around you whether it's for good or not. I personally would take back 90% of video game industry changes since the year 2000, but I can't do that. I have to adapt or move on.

So basically you made a no-content post, with subtle patronization thrown in ("que sera, sera, son") and wasted my time.

GG.

By the way, the water is wet, whether you like it or not. You may find this useful going forward.

not really

And I disagree with him. Simple as that. He's not a fucking god.

No, he merely designed the core of Fallout world, laid out principles of its design, and wrote its engine.

Creator? God? Semantics.

The plot of Fallout 2 revolves not just around the Envlave threat but also the battle for supremecy in the region, same as in New Vegas. That kind of location and faction interaction is something I find extremely interesting. You and Cain can disregard it and act like every location was a microcosm, but you're wrong.

I more or less agree with you and him about the humor, but it's not that frequent and doesn't harm the game much at all.

A battle between Fallout 2 fan and Fallout 2 hater is never done. But I'm going to leave it at that.

 

[DalekFlay]

No, he merely designed the core of Fallout world, laid out principles of its design, and wrote its engine.

Creator? God? Semantics.

Man, and I thought Roguey's devotion to Josh Sawyer was fanatical.

 

[shihonage]

He created a virtual world and wrote the routines, the "matrix", if you will, that brings it to life. This is the closest to being the God of that world as one can become, whether you like it or not.

 

[DalekFlay]

Tim Cain as god, Avellone as Jesus, Herve Caen as Lucifer and Bethesda as Beelzebub. Who knew Fallout was an allegory for all Christian thought.

Seriously though, I get the personality type that craves more realistic and logical worlds. I've been dealing with that type for 20+ years of video game discussion. People have different opinions, shocker. There's no changing minds here.

 

[Psquit]

When bethesda release fallout 4. New vegas wont have any flaws.

 

[oljebox]

I started playing New Vegas three days ago, and I've been mildly impressed. The systems are scant and underwhelming, but Obsidian really got the atmosphere down. No, it's not the isometric Fallouts, and that's okay. Gothic was mentioned in a Risen thread here and that got me comparing the two ...I arrived at the conclusion that Fallout New Vegas is that series' true spiritual successor. Forget Risen. Fallout New Vegas largely has the same feeling of hostility and isolation you experience in the Gothics.

If you go into the game with that perspective in mind, you'll quite enjoy it. It's not as good as the two Gothics, but it's good enough if you go into it with your expectations in check.

Edit: one thing I haven't been able to handwave yet is the idea that a correctional facility would exist in the world of Fallout, from which the Powderpuffs, or whatever the gang calls themselves, would escape. That was a huge oversight. Whoever was responsible for that contrivance should be punished.

 

[laclongquan]

Not really.

You want criminals to do hard labor, ie build your railroad? You need a centralized prison in the region to hold them. After building up all the rails you want in that region you can just stuck them there, or bring them to another prison in another region. The correctional facility could be the new name they call the place, or the old name of that place before the war. Kinda like that Novac name, you know.

My problem with powder gangs is the their placements of their quest-hub. NCRCF is bad enough, but the vault 3 is just too out of the way. My first two runs I just ignore that vault. And the worst factor is the absolute lack of female criminals.

 

[DalekFlay]

My problem with powder gangs is the their placements of their quest-hub. NCRCF is bad enough, but the vault 3 is just too out of the way. My first two runs I just ignore that vault. And the worst factor is the absolute lack of female criminals.

You're rewarded with the Vault 3 quest if you find it, simple as that. Some Powder Gangers tell you their leader fled in that direction, it's up to the player to stumble upon it. This is called a good thing.

 

[Akratus]

I started playing New Vegas three days ago, and I've been mildly impressed. The systems are scant and underwhelming, but Obsidian really got the atmosphere down. No, it's not the isometric Fallouts, and that's okay. Gothic was mentioned in a Risen thread here and that got me comparing the two ...I arrived at the conclusion that Fallout New Vegas is that series' true spiritual successor. Forget Risen. Fallout New Vegas largely has the same feeling of hostility and isolation you experience in the Gothics.

If you go into the game with that perspective in mind, you'll quite enjoy it. It's not as good as the two Gothics, but it's good enough if you go into it with your expectations in check.

Edit: one thing I haven't been able to handwave yet is the idea that a correctional facility would exist in the world of Fallout, from which the Powderpuffs, or whatever the gang calls themselves, would escape. That was a huge oversight. Whoever was responsible for that contrivance should be punished.

The systems are scant and underwhelming? Well, maybe that's because you've been playing for 3 days and you haven't seen the fucking systems yet. How about I'd say I played Fallout 1 and said that Shady Sands could never survive with the resources they have, calling the game not as good as New Vegas?

The main quest really starts after you've had your encounter with Benny at the Tops.

And maybe if you payed some freaking attention you'd know that the NCR is quite big and they set up the correctional facility. The NCR couldn't defend themselves against the riot without reinforcements which were unavailable as NCR forces are stretched thin. But they have plans to take it back which they initiate in a certain quest line.