No new New Vegas thanks!

[Tigranes]

I agree there were many small differences, but the core mechanics were the same. I guess my thought is sure you can like F3's gameplay over FNV or vice versa, but it's harder to believe that would be a key difference for liking one game and hating another.

[AGX-17]

Liked Fallout 3 myself. New Vegas seemed so bland and outdated, I didn't even pick it up. So yeah, I vote letting Bethesda continue the Fallout franchise and allow Obsidian to focus on Q&A, art design and good combat. Things their games seem to be lacking.

 

...and keep Fallout on the east coast please...no more deserts.

Fallout 3 was entirely desert, except for Point Lookout. NV was a more accurate (and more varied, it had Mt. Charleston, which contrary to popular belief among F3 fanboys, is a real mountain that has real snow and real trees, in reality,) depiction of the environment 200+ years after nuclear war. You didn't play Fallout or Fallout 2, did you? There were farms and high-tech cities and forests in it. I wonder if you've ever been to California, it has forests, too. And Fallout started on the West coast.

 

The only areas in which F3 is better than NV is in terms of world/level design and atmosphere. It was barely less buggy than NV on release, and it's Bethesda's own engine. And Bethesda did QA for NV. Most of the instability in NV is due to the larger number of NPCs and the increased complexity of quests. I still get as many CTDs in F3 as I do in NV on a core i5 2500k/16gb RAM/geForce gtc 560 ti (1gb) gaming rig. New Vegas's writing is leagues better, quests are generally vastly better, story is significantly better (F3 had a single, irritating, railroad plot that locked out any real concept of RPing, whose only variables were to not pursue it or to make some cheap tacked-on choices at the end, no ending slides detailing the aftermath like in F1, 2, and NV, etc.) adherence to/knowledge of Fallout lore/canon is (of course,) better, combat is better, levelling system is better.

 

The ideal scenario is a game world constructed by Bethesda for gameplay, story and quests designed and written by Obsidian.

Edited March 10, 2013 by AGX-17

[Aoyagi]

 

Fallout 3 was entirely desert, except for Point Lookout. NV was a more accurate (and more varied, it had Mt. Charleston, which contrary to popular belief among F3 fanboys, is a real mountain that has real snow and real trees, in reality,) depiction of the environment 200+ years after nuclear war. You didn't play Fallout or Fallout 2, did you? There were farms and high-tech cities and forests in it. I wonder if you've ever been to California, it has forests, too. And Fallout started on the West coast.

The only areas in which F3 is better than NV is in terms of world/level design and atmosphere. It was barely less buggy than NV on release, and it's Bethesda's own engine. And Bethesda did QA for NV. Most of the instability in NV is due to the larger number of NPCs and the increased complexity of quests. I still get as many CTDs in F3 as I do in NV on a core i5 2500k/16gb RAM/geForce gtc 560 ti (1gb) gaming rig. New Vegas's writing is leagues better, quests are generally vastly better, story is significantly better (F3 had a single, irritating, railroad plot that locked out any real concept of RPing, whose only variables were to not pursue it or to make some cheap tacked-on choices at the end, no ending slides detailing the aftermath like in F1, 2, and NV, etc.) adherence to/knowledge of Fallout lore/canon is (of course,) better, combat is better, levelling system is better.

 

The ideal scenario is a game world constructed by Bethesda for gameplay, story and quests designed and written by Obsidian.

 

Did you really like the flat land, somewhat random scattering of locations, nonsense like building a settlement around a nuke and corridor city DC? When I came to New Vegas, I felt as if I was back in New Reno, only less rotten. When I came to Rivet City, I felt nothing. Big empty. I simply didn't get any "falloutey" feeling from Fallout 3... or at least not any amount to speak of. I did have a lot of fun with Rock-It Launcher though.

[Jarmo]

As a fan of Fallout 1 and 2 who also had fun with FO: tactics, Fallout 3 was pretty awesome.

Skulking about in the wasteland, seeing supermutants or a deathclaw in the distance, was intense.

Oh the game had many beth trademark flaws, but exploring the wastes was involving and spooky, like in no FO before.

 

New Vegas improved a lot of stuff, a lot! A batter game by far. But it was building on established ground.

 

Having Bethesda make FO4 (with new next gen console engine), then give the engine to Obsidian for whatever FO setting, would be ideal.

Maybe New Vegas 2, maybe simply a DLC os some sort. Whatever.

 

Only I'd rather not the exact same NV setting with the same locations just 5 yrs in the future.

Rather something completely not casino stuff. Because the whole 30's in the future sucked in FO2 already.

 

 

---

Actually.. since everybody seems to want to make a game set 20yrs after the blast, that's what the next setting should be.

Still finding pre-war stuff from shelves... in an abandoned shop 50 meters from a settlement.. after 200 years?

Rather show the opening of the first vault a few decades after the war. Then the exploration would make all kinds of sense.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Jarmo

[DeathQuaker]

As Obsidian's Fallout team is comprised of many of the original Fallout designers (1, 2, Tactics), I'd love it if they made another Fallout game and it continued in the southwest--although it would also be interesting to see further expansion east/north FROM the original Fallout setting in California (e.g., I loved the area design in Honest Hearts)--maybe see a further-east region largely occupied or destroyed by the Legion, for example, with some additional warring factions. Or even go back back southwest and see how California is doing decades after the original Fallout (IIRC, there was some talk of doing LA which would be awesome since IIRC LA was pretty devasted in the Great War and even 200 years later is probably a mess--and thus an interesting and challenging location for a Fallout game).

 

I am equally cool with any of Bethesda's development team continuing to make its Fallout games on the East Coast--for example, I think the rumors of Fallout IV taking place in Boston are pretty damn cool. I love the idea of MIT being a center of activity in post-post apocalyptic America.

 

Ain't no reason we can't have both. Yes, I do have cake, and yes I will also eat it, thank you very much.

[Malekith]

Fallout by Obsidian with TIM CAIN as Project Lead

[Undecaf]

Fallout by Obsidian with TIM CAIN as Project Lead

 

...and made with the Onyx engine with isometric perspective and turnbased combat.

Wouldn't that be a blast....

[Nonek]

Oh sweet Lord yes please.

[AGX-17]

 

 

Fallout 3 was entirely desert, except for Point Lookout. NV was a more accurate (and more varied, it had Mt. Charleston, which contrary to popular belief among F3 fanboys, is a real mountain that has real snow and real trees, in reality,) depiction of the environment 200+ years after nuclear war. You didn't play Fallout or Fallout 2, did you? There were farms and high-tech cities and forests in it. I wonder if you've ever been to California, it has forests, too. And Fallout started on the West coast.

 

The only areas in which F3 is better than NV is in terms of world/level design and atmosphere. It was barely less buggy than NV on release, and it's Bethesda's own engine. And Bethesda did QA for NV. Most of the instability in NV is due to the larger number of NPCs and the increased complexity of quests. I still get as many CTDs in F3 as I do in NV on a core i5 2500k/16gb RAM/geForce gtc 560 ti (1gb) gaming rig. New Vegas's writing is leagues better, quests are generally vastly better, story is significantly better (F3 had a single, irritating, railroad plot that locked out any real concept of RPing, whose only variables were to not pursue it or to make some cheap tacked-on choices at the end, no ending slides detailing the aftermath like in F1, 2, and NV, etc.) adherence to/knowledge of Fallout lore/canon is (of course,) better, combat is better, levelling system is better.

 

The ideal scenario is a game world constructed by Bethesda for gameplay, story and quests designed and written by Obsidian.

 

Did you really like the flat land, somewhat random scattering of locations, nonsense like building a settlement around a nuke and corridor city DC? When I came to New Vegas, I felt as if I was back in New Reno, only less rotten. When I came to Rivet City, I felt nothing. Big empty. I simply didn't get any "falloutey" feeling from Fallout 3... or at least not any amount to speak of. I did have a lot of fun with Rock-It Launcher though.

 

 

Except NV was flatter than F3. I wasn't talking about Bethesda's ****ty writing (why do you think I said it should be designed and written by Obsidian?) I was talking about their level design. Exploring in NV consists primarily of wandering around outside, in a terrain flatter by far than F3s (seriously, that's your big argument against F3's world design, "it's flat"?) the only difference is that there's a wall of mountains surrounding the NV area and a wall of mountains dividing it down the center. I already said F3's writing was ****, I say that every time I make a post about F3. That's tangential to the fact that F3's world was simply more fun to explore for exploration's sake than NV. I never said anything good about any of F3's towns/settlements, and I won't. You're just sticking words in my proverbial mouth for the sake of your strawman.

As Obsidian's Fallout team is comprised of many of the original Fallout designers (1, 2, Tactics), I'd love it if they made another Fallout game and it continued in the southwest--although it would also be interesting to see further expansion east/north FROM the original Fallout setting in California (e.g., I loved the area design in Honest Hearts)--maybe see a further-east region largely occupied or destroyed by the Legion, for example, with some additional warring factions. Or even go back back southwest and see how California is doing decades after the original Fallout (IIRC, there was some talk of doing LA which would be awesome since IIRC LA was pretty devasted in the Great War and even 200 years later is probably a mess--and thus an interesting and challenging location for a Fallout game).

 

I am equally cool with any of Bethesda's development team continuing to make its Fallout games on the East Coast--for example, I think the rumors of Fallout IV taking place in Boston are pretty damn cool. I love the idea of MIT being a center of activity in post-post apocalyptic America.

 

Ain't no reason we can't have both. Yes, I do have cake, and yes I will also eat it, thank you very much.

Who at Obsidian worked on Tactics? Fallout Tactics was a bad Fallout game and they shouldn't be allowed to make more Fallout games.

Fallout by Obsidian with TIM CAIN as Project Lead

 

 

Fallout by Obsidian with TIM CAIN as Project Lead

 

...and made with the Onyx engine with isometric perspective and turnbased combat.

Wouldn't that be a blast....

 

 

That would be the true ideal, but it's not realistically likely to happen. Bethesda being Bethesda and all. Unless they jump on the transaction-based model and put out a smartphone/tablet Fallout game. Which wouldn't be a step in the right direction. But Bethesda is stuck in their ways, they're still comfortable clinging to Todd's precious, precious Xbox.

[Undecaf]

 

 

Fallout by Obsidian with TIM CAIN as Project Lead

 

...and made with the Onyx engine with isometric perspective and turnbased combat.

Wouldn't that be a blast....

 

That would be the true ideal, but it's not realistically likely to happen. Bethesda being Bethesda and all. Unless they jump on the transaction-based model and put out a smartphone/tablet Fallout game. Which wouldn't be a step in the right direction. But Bethesda is stuck in their ways, they're still comfortable clinging to Todd's precious, precious Xbox.

 

Yeah, it's not likely to happen. Although, they could (potentially) try to "exploit" the interest in these kinds of games risen by Kickstarter (and the success of XCOM:EU) by a smaller (AA, or however these budget ratings go) title. I wouldn't say no to that (relative to the games quality, of course) even if it would be a blatant cashgrab.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Undecaf

[Blodhemn]

What's so great about the NV writing? The quest structure is obviously better than FO3, although at times it gets messy and unorganized, but the dialogue itself is equally as lame and at times worse than FO3. Overall, the two games are about even to me  - enjoyable to cruise around in at your own pace.

[DeathQuaker]

It may be a matter of personal taste, but I found, for a small few examples, Veronica's talking about her struggle with the Brotherhood, or the hilarious dialogue of the Think Tank, or the skeezy twisted morality lectures of Vulpes Inculta to all be very compelling, each in their own way. I think some of Christine Royce's not-dialogue even got the old eyes to tear up at one point. I also found the responses of the Courier to have some "character" to them rather than just be blank-slate responses you often see in video games, which I liked.

 

I don't think FO3's was awful, and it had some good moments, but I can think of few memorable dialogues I had in FO3 (with the caveat that it's been a longer time since I played it, so my memory of the whole game is fuzzier), and most of those were with Moira Brown.

 

If it's not to your taste, though, that just is what it is. Personally I thought the narrative text in F:NV was superbly done. But then, I have a Master's Degree in English Literature, so I probably wouldn't know good writing if you hit me over the head with it.

Edited March 13, 2013 by DeathQuaker

[Coaxmetal]

As long as it contains the same level of Detail as New Vegas (and then some) ie reputations, faction quests, variety in enviroments, perks, VATs (maybe an option to turn off if desired..with achievment for doing so and finishing it). I don't care where they place it. Vegas was the best since 2 in my opinion. I think this is the only forum where some ppl might agree though. Why did people who love 3 hate Vegas..apart from the protaganist, it had everything improved upon. But then I am a fan of Kotor ii's massive improvments to Kotor too..

[rjshae]

Yes Vegas had an improved game engine. I just liked the situation, setting, and story in FO3 a little more. Both had some room for improvement, but they were each entertaining and enjoyable in their own crazy way. I felt I got my money's worth out of them, which is what matters in the end.

[Hurlshort]

What's so great about the NV writing? The quest structure is obviously better than FO3, although at times it gets messy and unorganized, but the dialogue itself is equally as lame and at times worse than FO3. Overall, the two games are about even to me  - enjoyable to cruise around in at your own pace.

 

Haha, that's a good one.  

[Guard Dog]

 

 

The ideal scenario is a game world constructed by Bethesda for gameplay, story and quests designed and written by Obsidian.

This

[Starwars]

Yeeeah, I don't really see how anyone could not see the difference in writing between Fallout 3 and NV either...

 

Don't get me wrong, I think NV is rather uneven at times as well, but I don't see how anyone could not see great writing in characters like Mr House, Chief Hanlon, Veronica, Joshua Graham, the Dead Money cast (all fantastic if you ask me), Caesar (even when obviously disagreeing with his ideas), Arcade, the first Recon unit etc etc. And that's not even going into the world building side of it all, how things are thought out, how they have a history, how they connect with each other, just the... *conflicts* and problems of the entire situation of NV. It's great stuff actually.

 

And one can take it even further and discuss the choices you can make as well, which are generally lacking in Fallout 3, while you can mess with a *lot* of things in NV. There are many variables to screw around with. How you can interact with a lot of these characters and situations.

 

Again, I think NV is uneven at times but overall it's an immense writing effort, even if it is a different approach than something like say Torment or KOTOR2 which are more about the story itself.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Starwars

[Guard Dog]

Yeah it's a shame KOTOR2 could not rise above it's flaws (namely a rushed production) because the story concept. characters and writing were outstanding. Torment is, of course, the greatest game plot ever. I actually enjoyed NV more than F3. Fallout 3 had really excellent atmosphere but there were really only two ways to play it. NV you could play it over 5-6 times and not play the same game twice.I found it easier to make a "concept charachter" in NV than F3.

 

Just my $.02

Edited March 13, 2013 by Guard Dog

[Malekith]

As long as it contains the same level of Detail as New Vegas (and then some) ie reputations, faction quests, variety in enviroments, perks, VATs (maybe an option to turn off if desired..with achievment for doing so and finishing it). I don't care where they place it. Vegas was the best since 2 in my opinion. I think this is the only forum where some ppl might agree though. Why did people who love 3 hate Vegas..apart from the protaganist, it had everything improved upon. But then I am a fan of Kotor ii's massive improvments to Kotor too..

Oh, there other forums too. RPG Codex and NMA for example. Most people who played the original Fallouts and most Obsidian fans like New Vegas. But sadly Oblivion fans are much more.

[Blodhemn]

Yeeeah, I don't really see how anyone could not see the difference in writing between Fallout 3 and NV either...

 

Don't get me wrong, I think NV is rather uneven at times as well, but I don't see how anyone could not see great writing in characters like Mr House, Chief Hanlon, Veronica, Joshua Graham, the Dead Money cast (all fantastic if you ask me), Caesar (even when obviously disagreeing with his ideas), Arcade, the first Recon unit etc etc. And that's not even going into the world building side of it all, how things are thought out, how they have a history, how they connect with each other, just the... *conflicts* and problems of the entire situation of NV. It's great stuff actually.

 

And one can take it even further and discuss the choices you can make as well, which are generally lacking in Fallout 3, while you can mess with a *lot* of things in NV. There are many variables to screw around with. How you can interact with a lot of these characters and situations.

 

Again, I think NV is uneven at times but overall it's an immense writing effort, even if it is a different approach than something like say Torment or KOTOR2 which are more about the story itself.

No, I see the difference between the writing - it's obvious. But, I'm nearly finished with Old World Blues for the first time, and I hated the style of humor throughout the entire DLC. So, in moments like that, compared to FO3's DLC, even though it's more involved writing, it comes off as the writers trying too hard to be funny, and that brings the experience down more than just some vanilla writing that came with FO3 DLC. Throughout the entire NV experience compared to FO3, again, it's obvious there's more of a backdrop to the story and all of the different factions and people, but when it comes to dialogue, which is what should push the story and have me actually caring about it and it's characters, NV fell just as flat as FO3 did. And when they tried adding more character to the dialogue, like in Old World Blues, it's just grating.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Blodhemn

[Jarmo]

I didn't like Old World Blues either, in fact none of the FO3 or NV DLC's I've played were particularly good. I do like the overall writing, both of missions and dialogue, much better in NV than in FO3. Not all the time and it's not like one was masterful and the other crap, FO3 had great stuff and NV had it's share of gringeworthy crap.

 

Both games suffer from the cramped playing area, NV to greater extent. FO3 would require maybe 10x the scale and NV 100x to make the setting feasible, 

but then the whole a man and his dog walking through the wastes would be just a horrible time consuming experience. (And totally impossible to make as well, at least the way it's crafted now.)

 

The trip from NV opening village to next town (nipton with powder gangers in the hotel and inhabitants holed up in casino) should take at least an hour of walking to make any sense. There should be a way bigger bunch of convicts out there (there's what, all of a dozen of them?) to make it reasonable for the soldiers to stay put. And the next military base is now about 500 meters away..

 

Anyway, with the shortened scale nonwithstanding, NV world makes a lot more sense. The weak and overstretched NCR covers most of the area, but doesn't have the manpower to actively do a lot of stuff, like clear areas of raiders or deathclaws. If you stop and think, most every location could exist where they are now and has some sort of reason of being there.

 

FO3 has some of that and it's clear to me there was an amount of thinking made when the overall setting was planned. Brotherhood base and sphere of influence here, defendable rivet city or the walled up megaton village there. Supermutants, enclave and brotherhood engaged in a 3-way struggle (was the supermutants plan or what they were up to ever explained in any way btw?).

 

But then the lower level of location planning stepped in and added plot locations like luxury tenpenny tower in the middle of nowhere or little lamplight, with a neverending magical supply of fresh children. And the whole main plot with it's painfully obvious good vs bad setting.

 

But yea, loved them both nonetheless.

[Blodhemn]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with all of that save for the dialogue, which I just didn't find of much better quality - good breakdown of the games nonetheless. That's not to say Obsidian can't write good dialogue - Kotor 2 and Alpha Protocol are examples to the contrary, but it's clear more thought went into the bulk of writing for the quest trees in NV than it did for good character writing.

[Aoyagi]

 

 Did you really like the flat land, somewhat random scattering of locations, nonsense like building a settlement around a nuke and corridor city DC? When I came to New Vegas, I felt as if I was back in New Reno, only less rotten. When I came to Rivet City, I felt nothing. Big empty. I simply didn't get any "falloutey" feeling from Fallout 3... or at least not any amount to speak of. I did have a lot of fun with Rock-It Launcher though.

 

Except NV was flatter than F3. I wasn't talking about Bethesda's ****ty writing (why do you think I said it should be designed and written by Obsidian?) I was talking about their level design. Exploring in NV consists primarily of wandering around outside, in a terrain flatter by far than F3s (seriously, that's your big argument against F3's world design, "it's flat"?) the only difference is that there's a wall of mountains surrounding the NV area and a wall of mountains dividing it down the center. I already said F3's writing was ****, I say that every time I make a post about F3. That's tangential to the fact that F3's world was simply more fun to explore for exploration's sake than NV. I never said anything good about any of F3's towns/settlements, and I won't. You're just sticking words in my proverbial mouth for the sake of your strawman.

You said that you liked the world/level design. That's a pretty general expression, isn't it? It includes design of cities and towns, so I'm not "sticking words in your proverbial mouth for the sake of my strawman". You can point you aggression somewhere else.

 

About F3 being flat, could you refresh my memory and tell me where was any kind of place that had a hill taller than say, 5 meters? It's not like there should be any hills, because, if I recall correctly, DC and its surroundings are pretty flat. And seriously, it's not my "big argument", it was first on the list becuse it's the most obvious one (or so I thought). You already mentioned Mt. Charleston and the mountains in the center of NV map (which include the Nipton pass, REPCONN test site, Black Mt. and all that, I guess), then there is Sloan, Black Canyon and its surroundings, the area between Callville Bay and Devil's Throat, and Red Rock canyon. I think that's more than a third of the map.

All I can remember from Fallout as a tall are was the Oasis. I may need to refresh my memory though, it's been years since I touched the game.

[nikolokolus]

Fallout 3 had its moments.  I thought the world building was "interesting" (although not very believable) almost like a giant amusement park with different sub-theme parks contained within.  However,its story was pure crap; bland railroaded plot with a clear "bad" side and a "good" side, with barely any true choices and consequences.

FO:NV on the other hand I thought did a really good job of recreating the desolation and feeling of loneliness that the real Mojave inspires ... this was good for verisimilitude, but sometimes felt a little empty and "samey" from a gameplay perspective.  From a simulation angle it got a lot right, but maybe it should have sacrificed some of that "realism" for some good old fashioned variation and creative license?  Mostly this is just a niggle.

 

As for the story, character writing and faction design, I thought it did a fantastic job of creating people with believable motives, lots of gray area and meaningful choices and consequences.

 

Whatever though, tastes differ.  The proof for me is looking at my Steam statistics for both games.  65 hours for FO:3 and 456 hours in FO:NV

Edited March 19, 2013 by nikolokolus

[Blodhemn]

I find that kind of funny. Yeah, FO3 had your typical good/bad but so did FNV, it just had more options and at the end, even though I planned on playing one side, I couldn't care for one more than the other and just end up wanting to be independent even of the Yes Man. House/Caeser - two sides of the same coin, Caeser is also the stock "bad" and dull. NCR - very boring and the stock "good" for the most part.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Blodhemn