FO: NV (General Discussion)

[Tigranes]

As someone who's never been to any of FO's settings I couldn't care less about that angle, but reading up it's really nice how much effort each game, to varying degrees, makes to match the RL setting. I did think some areas of FO3, like the Museums, were very nicely done. But in the end what's important is whether a location has interesting in-game story & stuffs to do. I do think some FNV areas are fairly write-in stuff for the universe by now (Ghoul Cult was arguably the low point), but overall I think FNV is so markedly superior in two very important areas;

 

1) In general, each area has so much more stuff to do, more fun things to do, and more meaningful things to do;

2) In general, the world as a whole is knitted together so much better - while some of the 'go to 4 locations all around the wasteland' quests can be annoying, you quickly see that all these NCR depots and forts and towns strung across each other are all positioned in a meaningful way, the reason they are there, have that many men, have X types of difficulties, etc all make sense, so on and so forth.

 

Anyway, reaching 40 hours now and it does look like it's not over yet, and I know I've missed huge swathes of the wasteland. I went to the Fort, and that was pretty well done, though I can see why the Legion is not as compelling as it could be. Nearly Level 30 now and think I can see the final confrontation building up.

[Lexx]

I'm normally a "good" type, but I wonder what would happen if you were Vilified by every faction. Would it break the game or is there a plan for that...

 

It will not break the game, as there is still Yes-Man.

[WorstUsernameEver]

It will not break the game, as there is still

Yes-Man

.

 

This is General Discussion gaiz.

[LadyCrimson]

Reached a point that happens a lot for me, in these types of games....where even tho there's still lots of 'paths' I haven't done/could explore in terms of story arcs, the role playing etc. kind of disappears & I mostly fool around via save games or quick test runs. Altering mechanics, testing them out, seeing what they affect or don't. Taking the phone apart, in other words. I can't help myself. At some point I'll tire of that, and playing the game 'properly' for another run or two will appeal. It's a cycle I go through.

 

So from my point of view, FO:NV works on both of the levels that I really enjoy...it made me want to explore the world (what's around this corner?) for long enough to actually finish the game at least once...which is always a feat since overall I'm a terrible finisher of games....and it has the oddball tinkering & amusement aspects that keeps me mucking about long after the exploring/story arcs stop motivating me. I don't think I've bought a game in a long time that had this much replay incentive, whatever the reason.

[MrBrown]

"For Auld Lang Syne" brought a tear to my eye.

[Gromnir]

"Wait a second, how does FO3 capture the personality of DC? "

 

an obvious response: we never said that fo3 captured the personality o' dc.

 

"at the same time, the developers utilized their intimate familiarity with the locale to give DC a personality that new vegas does not have."

 

*shrug*

 

nevertheless, we will answer your query as if it were actually a response to a Gromnir statement. the fo3 setting actually had a personality... the setting made a difference and added to the game. maybe you didn't like the train tunnels, but they were a kewl touch that helped bring dc to life and added a gameplay aspect. 'course pop maybe ignores fact that fo3 embraced locales in dc other than The Mall. we got dupont circle, georgetown, and key bridge to name a few recreated areas, many o' which were familiar to even a casual tourist. whether Gromnir were familiar with dc or not, dc from fo3 felt likes a post apocalyptic city in ruins. it felt, if not genuine, realized. we could tell by playing the game that were were only catching a few o' the references to locale flavor that were being added to the game. we get no such feeling from fo:nv. the vegas desert o' fo3 is a bleak place with very little personality to be calling its own... and perhaps that is a genuine recreation, but if so then the obsidian shoulda' chosen an alternative location.

 

"Ain't a lot of obvious, phallic monuments to tickle your geography prostate."

 

am s'posing that you were going for irony as fo:nv, while failing to makes us wax nostalgic for vegas in any way, shape, or form, has a number of iconic phallic buildings dotting its generic wasteland landscape.

 

"Was a return to turn-based combat ever part of Obsidian's approach to FO:NV? I don't believe it ever was, but maybe there's a quote out there that proves me wrong (I'm sure you've got a whole mess of Sawyer quotes just lying around). Given that, I fail to see much irony. Breaking: Company fails to fulfill imaginary goals, more on this at 11."

 

wow. the apologists really come outa the woodwork at times like these, no? Gromnir knew from the start o' fo:nv that this game would play more like a shooter... based on sawyer criticism o' vats on the boards. pop again applies poor reading skills to create a strawman? we never suggested a broken promise. nevertheless, for all the fo purists who were hopeful that obsidian, a company with long standing ties to the original fo games, would resurrect the ephemeral True FO we has heard so much 'bout on these boards, it should come as a bit of a shock that it were obsidian that delivered the dagger blow to fo turn-based gameplay.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[LadyCrimson]

Could someone explain to me what, exactly "iron sights" is? All I noticed was that if I hit r-mouse I could aim down the sight of a gun for a more 'straight-on' view...giving every weapon a sort of sniper-viewpoint. Is that it? That didn't strike me as super powerful, especially since half the time the gunsight felt like it blocked my view of the enemy to be able to aim at it (unlike the 'scope' view), not to mention the enemies danced around so fast it was hard to keep them within the gunsight while in that mode.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Weapons are generally more accurate in the game and VATS has been depowered a little in that the damage resistance is diminished and enemies aren't quite as slowed down as they were in Fallout 3. I don't really see that as dealing the killing blow to something that, frankly, was already quite dead, though.

[LadyCrimson]

I guess I'd have to play the first two fallouts to get a better idea of a lot of some of the references/differences.

 

I've never been that into turn-based games...or rather, I have no particular preference for it. Don't care that much which one it is, as long as whichever is chosen is designed well to fit the game (VATS in NV, imo, was not a great thing...). Some of my fave strategy games were turn-based - a genre that I think suits turns very well - but I usually prefer real-time.

[WorstUsernameEver]

I don't think this is the better thread to start discussing the departure from turn-based again, especially since I have the feeling that the whole discussion would just be repeating the same things ad nauseam.

[LadyCrimson]

I was not a part of any past convos, nor was it my intention to stir up/be part of any major debate. Merely briefly stating my personal preference. It's how I roll.

[Gromnir]

Weapons are generally more accurate in the game and VATS has been depowered a little in that the damage resistance is diminished and enemies aren't quite as slowed down as they were in Fallout 3. I don't really see that as dealing the killing blow to something that, frankly, was already quite dead, though.

 

weapons is MUCH more accurate in fo:nv. targets that we cannot even initiate vats with is relative easy insta-kills with a night-scoped headshot from a varmint rifle.... and that is with negligible gun skill. the only time we ever use vats is in the unlikely event some critter gets immediate on-top o' us... has become cheese. is no way that Gromnir could hope to aim five shots accurate to the head o' an enemy directly adjacent to us in rt, but vats makes possible.

 

using ranged weapons, we played +90% o' fo3 in vats.

 

using ranged weapons, we played +90% o' fo:nv in rt.

 

the last vestiges o' fo tb is dead.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Pop]

nevertheless, we will answer your query as if it were actually a response to a Gromnir statement. the fo3 setting actually had a personality... the setting made a difference and added to the game. maybe you didn't like the train tunnels, but they were a kewl touch that helped bring dc to life and added a gameplay aspect. 'course pop maybe ignores fact that fo3 embraced locales in dc other than The Mall. we got dupont circle, georgetown, and key bridge to name a few recreated areas, many o' which were familiar to even a casual tourist. whether Gromnir were familiar with dc or not, dc from fo3 felt likes a post apocalyptic city in ruins. it felt, if not genuine, realized. we could tell by playing the game that were were only catching a few o' the references to locale flavor that were being added to the game. we get no such feeling from fo:nv. the vegas desert o' fo3 is a bleak place with very little personality to be calling its own... and perhaps that is a genuine recreation, but if so then the obsidian shoulda' chosen an alternative location.

One of the things I really like about you is that you say things up until the point where it's better to say you haven't said anything at all. You're faulting Sawyer and Obsidian for your own lack of effort and / or lack of taste for the setting. I haven't been to Vegas but I felt like I was "only catching a few o' the references to locale flavor". Your gripes are completely meaningless.

[Pop]

nevertheless, we will answer your query as if it were actually a response to a Gromnir statement. the fo3 setting actually had a personality... the setting made a difference and added to the game. maybe you didn't like the train tunnels, but they were a kewl touch that helped bring dc to life and added a gameplay aspect. 'course pop maybe ignores fact that fo3 embraced locales in dc other than The Mall. we got dupont circle, georgetown, and key bridge to name a few recreated areas, many o' which were familiar to even a casual tourist. whether Gromnir were familiar with dc or not, dc from fo3 felt likes a post apocalyptic city in ruins. it felt, if not genuine, realized. we could tell by playing the game that were were only catching a few o' the references to locale flavor that were being added to the game. we get no such feeling from fo:nv. the vegas desert o' fo3 is a bleak place with very little personality to be calling its own... and perhaps that is a genuine recreation, but if so then the obsidian shoulda' chosen an alternative location.

One of the things I really like about you is that you say things up until the point where it's better to say you haven't said anything at all. You're faulting Sawyer and Obsidian for your own lack of effort and / or lack of taste for the setting. I haven't been to Vegas but I felt like I was "only catching a few o' the references to locale flavor". Your gripes are completely meaningless. Just say "I find deserts to be boring", or "I wish Vegas had more buildings I feel are important enough to know about".

 

PS all the caves / mines / canyons / mountains / lakes in NV are real places. What constitutes "full advantage" of landmarks? Because it sounds like it has nothing to do with comparitive world design and everything to do with your personal aesthetic sensibility, even though you're framing your critiques in the context of comparitive world design. That's not very fair.

 

wow. the apologists really come outa the woodwork at times like these, no? Gromnir knew from the start o' fo:nv that this game would play more like a shooter... based on sawyer criticism o' vats on the boards. pop again applies poor reading skills to create a strawman? we never suggested a broken promise. nevertheless, for all the fo purists who were hopeful that obsidian, a company with long standing ties to the original fo games, would resurrect the ephemeral True FO we has heard so much 'bout on these boards, it should come as a bit of a shock that it were obsidian that delivered the dagger blow to fo turn-based gameplay.

People who honestly felt that way were never paying attention. How does realizing that make me an "apologist" unless Obsidian indeed failed to implement TB combat? How can you apologize for a success?

Edited November 13, 2010 by Pop

[Cantousent]

"the vegas desert o' fo3 is a bleak place with very little personality to be calling its own... and perhaps that is a genuine recreation, but if so then the obsidian shoulda' chosen an alternative location."

 

That might be true for you, but the New Vegas wasteland has much more personality for me. I guess that's the point I didn't make above. It's not that I disagree with your arguments so much as we are fundamentally opposed as to the premise itself. Maybe most folks think the way you do, but that won't change the fact that New Vegas has tons of personality for me. ...And it would definitely have different personality set in, say, Yosemite in the Central Valley or the Grand Canyon in Arizona or Zion National Park in Utah. New Vegas doesn't have some generic desert feel. Once again, I admit that you have a valid point if you say that I've been to each of these locations and so that might color my judgment. The fact is, for whatever reason, I see New Vegas as a place filled with personality. Of course, I enjoyed the atmosphere and personality in Fallout 3 also.

[Gromnir]

"You're faulting Sawyer and Obsidian for your own lack of effort and / or lack of taste for the setting."

 

eh? what is with you and strawman?

 

we has been to vegas (real and in game) but has not spent much time there as yet. nevertheless, we has spent considerable hours (+30) combing the area around vegas. is generic. so, no & yes: we has clear put in considerable effort, but no, we don't find anything particular compelling 'bout the setting. is not the developer/writer's job to make the setting compelling or interesting? gets another pass from pop?

 

wacky stuff.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[sorophx]

I guess I'd have to play the first two fallouts to get a better idea of a lot of some of the references/differences.

C, if you know what's good for you, don't you're gonna hate the combat, the game's pace (well, first half of FO1 is very good, but after you reach your intermediate goal, it drops), the only thing good about FO 1 and 2 are some quests, the dreaded C&C and dialogues. and the humor of course, but that's not suited for everyone. you'd be better off watching a Let's Play

[Pop]

You keep talking about landmarks in FO3, and NV has just as many landmarks. If interest in a setting comes from the fidelity with which the appearance of said landmarks are recreated in-game, then there's no reason why you would favor one over the other. The lottery aspect of Nipton (as in, the lottery aspect of the game comes from the fact that no one ever visited Nipton IRL except to play the lottery) is more clever than any location design in FO3. The only conclusion to come to is that your preference for FO3's setting is arbitrary. You speak of NV as though it lacks things it does not lack. I don't know if it's because you're a lawyer or what, but you should know that in normal everyday conversations, people infer things that are not explicitly stated. I don't know why you go about things as though what you say has no meaning.

Edited November 13, 2010 by Pop

[Cantousent]

Once again, because I can repeat myself also, I think the setting is compelling. Not just the natural landmarks in the physical setting, but the whole New Vegas gestalt. I don't know about Pop, but I'm not giving Obsids a pass. Obsidian doesn't need one.

 

As for Fallout 1 and 2, Fallout 2 might still be my favorite Fallout. Frankly, I've enjoyed every Fallout so far. I've probably spent more time playing Fallout 2 than the rest, but I'm quite taken by New Vegas.

[Gizmo]

I guess I'd have to play the first two fallouts to get a better idea of a lot of some of the references/differences.

 

I've never been that into turn-based games...or rather, I have no particular preference for it. Don't care that much which one it is, as long as whichever is chosen is designed well to fit the game (VATS in NV, imo, was not a great thing...). Some of my fave strategy games were turn-based - a genre that I think suits turns very well - but I usually prefer real-time.

VATS did not exist in the earlier games... (except as a location in the game called the "Vats" ~Vats filled with FEV).

 

What we have in FO3/NV called VATS, is an odd re-envisioning of the 'Aimed Shot' option in Fallout 1 & 2. In these games AP's were far more important and were used for all actions during combat. ~Aim actions cost more AP's than non-aimed, and the hit percentages were a fixed linear risk rather than calculated by proximity (which IMO is bad despite being more realistic).

 

C, if you know what's good for you, don't you're gonna hate the combat, the game's pace (well, first half of FO1 is very good, but after you reach your intermediate goal, it drops), the only thing good about FO 1 and 2 are some quests, the dreaded C&C and dialogues. and the humor of course, but that's not suited for everyone. you'd be better off watching a Let's Play

Combat was a favorite part of Fallout for me, (and its why I could sit through Tactics, as they improved it ~if you ignore the RT default).

[sorophx]

Combat was a favorite part of Fallout for me, (and its why I could sit through Tactics, as they improved it ~if you ignore the RT default).

hay, I loved every part of FO1 and 2. but that was back in 1998. 12 years later, a person that never played them? I tried playing FO2 last year and couldn't bring myself to.

[LadyCrimson]

C, if you know what's good for you, don't you're gonna hate the combat, the game's pace (well, first half of FO1 is very good, but after you reach your intermediate goal, it drops), the only thing good about FO 1 and 2 are some quests, the dreaded C&C and dialogues. and the humor of course, but that's not suited for everyone. you'd be better off watching a Let's Play

Heh. I always figured they were games that if I'd picked them up when they first came out, I might (emphasis on might) have liked them fairly well. But as I am these days...yeah, maybe not so much.

 

After Borderlands finally convinced me that I actually liked shooting/sniping guns (vs. magic etc) in the right game, I checked out some FO3 let's plays & considered trying that one....but decided to skip it and just go for NV instead since it was coming out. :D

[Kaftan Barlast]

Shooting people in the eye with a friggin' gauss rifle will NEVER be boring. Im sick enough to actually own a legit copy of FO:T :D

[MrBrown]

I'll probably end up playing the old Fallouts again, just because New Vegas constantly uses their background music. It's a conspiracy, I tell you.

[Gizmo]

Combat was a favorite part of Fallout for me, (and its why I could sit through Tactics, as they improved it ~if you ignore the RT default).

hay, I loved every part of FO1 and 2. but that was back in 1998. 12 years later, a person that never played them? I tried playing FO2 last year and couldn't bring myself to.

Well... There are several posts on the Bethsoft forum from FO3 customers that learned of FO1&2 and bought them and came back posting they liked them (some actually liked them more and said, [to the effect], that they now understood what some of these old fans meant by their comments )

*(to be fair, there are plenty that say the opposite, call names, and say its a waste of their money.... they expected

)

 

I once showed an older cousin Fallout 2, and he was the self described shooter junkie that only played FPS games. He had it 5 minutes and was starting to get into it ~and can you believe it crashed? . (their PC was messed up to begin with though)

 

I'll probably end up playing the old Fallouts again, just because New Vegas constantly uses their background music. It's a conspiracy, I tell you.

Fallout 1&2 are on my never uninstall list, and have been for years. Edited November 13, 2010 by Gizmo