Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
BrookM wrote: Oh, one thing I do always forget: F3 did have a better soundtrack than New Vegas imho.
Liam neeson, Malcom McDowell,
I would pay money just to listen to Malcom McDowell read from a phone book.
"I LIEK CHOCOLATE MILK" - Batman
"It exist because it needs to. Because its not the tank the imperium deserve but the one it needs right now . So it wont complain because it can take it. Because they're not our normal tank. It is a silent guardian, a watchful protector . A leman russ!" - Ilove40k
3k
2k
/ 1k
1k
Godless-Mimicry wrote: I could never enjoy New Vegas as much as 3. First and foremost, the many crippling glitches that rendered your game unplayable that still haven't been fixed to this day. Then there was the lack of adventure that 3 presented; a huge portion all around the outside of the map has nothing in it. The story also was very linear and thus made the game a lot more linear. Sure you chose a side from many, but you always ended up in the same places and the game tended to push you onward to the next quest, rather than the big-scape 'out-on-your-own' style of 3. But I suppose those were the styles that suited each game; 3 made you feel lost in the wasteland, whereas NV had the direction of a returning society.
I'm pretty sure the parts of maps which didn't have anything were walled off.
New Vegas is more linear?
Fo3: go to megaton, go to dj dude (you have to use pretty much the same route), go to rivet city (it makes sense to use same route), go to "weird old man wants to be a little girl" -land, go to rivet city (again), go to "town full of kids living next to large super mutant cave", oh noes enclave got you, goto rivet city (this time with giant robot, also you have no option of using different route)
nv: find benny, join up with house, ncr, ceasar or yourself, goto ceasars camp, goto different factions in nevada to ask their help (or not, you can fail too), finish things up with the damn (depends on whom you did join with)
Every time I hear "in my opinion" or "just my opinion" makes me want to strangle a puppy. People use their opinions as a shield that other poeple can't critisize and that is bs.
If you can't defend or won't defend your opinion then that "opinion" is bs. Stop trying to tip-toe and defend what you believe in.
Yes, 3 was more linear, with the only choice occurring at the end (and it was just an aesthetic one). So whilst New Vegas also was somewhat linear, it allowed you to approach each node in a different manner and provided quests only available to those who had followed a certain questline at certain points. Your choices in New Vegas had an effect upon things in the world, whereas the ones in 3 were already decided for you, so any changes, and there weren't many, were already expected of the player.
But, that's down to the different devs. 3 plays like Bethesda's other games, whilst New Vegas plays like Obsidian's in terms of pacing and the world. Still Skyrim did improve how quests were handled, with a few options to reorder when they occurred, or how, so here's hoping that carries through into their next game.
Fo3: go to megaton, go to dj dude (you have to use pretty much the same route), go to rivet city (it makes sense to use same route), go to "weird old man wants to be a little girl" -land, go to rivet city (again), go to "town full of kids living next to large super mutant cave", oh noes enclave got you, goto rivet city (this time with giant robot, also you have no option of using different route)
nv: find benny, join up with house, ncr, ceasar or yourself, goto ceasars camp, goto different factions in nevada to ask their help (or not, you can fail too), finish things up with the damn (depends on whom you did join with)
Except in NV the end of one quest always leads you by the hand right to the start of the next one; even if you turned off quest markers you would be led right to where you needed to be. In 3 you had to journey across the whole scape of the Wasteland following the main quest.
Fo3: go to megaton, go to dj dude (you have to use pretty much the same route), go to rivet city (it makes sense to use same route), go to "weird old man wants to be a little girl" -land, go to rivet city (again), go to "town full of kids living next to large super mutant cave", oh noes enclave got you, goto rivet city (this time with giant robot, also you have no option of using different route)
nv: find benny, join up with house, ncr, ceasar or yourself, goto ceasars camp, goto different factions in nevada to ask their help (or not, you can fail too), finish things up with the damn (depends on whom you did join with)
Except in NV the end of one quest always leads you by the hand right to the start of the next one; even if you turned off quest markers you would be led right to where you needed to be. In 3 you had to journey across the whole scape of the Wasteland following the main quest.
So you mean that quests usually end near quest giver and they can give you a new quest? How is this bad? How is fo3 different? Every main quest is given to you right after the last one and atleast in new vegas you can fail, or do something else which gives an alternative path. I believe you can also avoid some main quests being given to you (only 2 quests appear in your journal automatically, tutorial and find benny)
Every time I hear "in my opinion" or "just my opinion" makes me want to strangle a puppy. People use their opinions as a shield that other poeple can't critisize and that is bs.
If you can't defend or won't defend your opinion then that "opinion" is bs. Stop trying to tip-toe and defend what you believe in.
Firstly, no it doesn't look decently populated at all. That map clearly shows what I mean; everything is concentrated to the center and a huge portion of the map around the edges is bare. I've explored them in game too; there's nothing out there, not even enemies. Rather pointless really.
As for how the quest system is bad, I've already said how; because it makes the game more linear. And it differs from Fallout 3 because for half of the quests in the main story you need to travel half way across the wasteland several times over and explore new areas. There's no incentive to explore the game world unlike in Fallout 3, and for the record, I've tested it in both games. I comfortably completed NV in two days also, completely, that was of course on the 5th attempt to get it to finish without some silly glitch corrupting the save file or making the game unplayable.
In New Vegas you start things out in the suburbs and are almost immediately sent to the Strip and everything after that is either in NV itself or in locations right next to it, bar the trip down south to Caeser's place. In 3 after you've gotten to Megaton you have to trek half of the winding city to find 3 Dog, and then the other half of the city to get to Rivet City before you finally have to go back off into the desert to find dad.
As for the choice of New Vegas, with the exception of the very end none of those choices are of much consequence except thematically as the locations you go to and what you ultimately do on each quests is mostly the same. Sure this is no different in Fallout 3, but as I've said, 3 at least requires some adventure and trekking to get it done, making it more a quest than a chore.
YMMV, and some may prefer what NV brought to the table, but it was a game in a post-apocalyptic adventure series that had very little adventure and also very little upgrades compared to its predecessor. It wasn't a bad game at all, not by any stretch of the imagination, and is one of my favorite games, but it could have been so much more if they didn't rush it, and so 3 is where I will always go back to, and not NV.
I much preferred 3 to NV. But then i prefer the lack of much civilisation in 3. Plus i enjoyed the story much more. NV felr more forced and farcical while 3s felt more natural and progressive and was better paced.
Mind that Tactics had a poor development period, and little input from Black Isle, despite being the series' first spin off and the apparent need for some hand holding. If the game hadn't been pushed for an early release, had actually finished its bug testing period (the devs were given a month to do it in), and was much more polished, it... would still have been a poor game. Having just played it a few weeks ago I can say that it felt odd, given that it was an RPG that was being shoe horned into the RTS setting. No, what we don't talk about is FOBOS. ^^
I like Tactics. Its obviously a lot more linear than Fallouts traditionally are and it gets quite repetitive but I still find it enjoyable and IMO at least it's a worthy game in its own right and as part of the FO universe. It certainly got Fallouts sense of humour right.
I would much prefer Obsidian to make this over Bethesda but I want to play Eternity far more than I want to play FO 4 so I will have to just make that sacrifice Hopefully Obsidian will get a chance to make an expansion that fixes most of the problems with Bethesda's game design (but with less bugs this time please).
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
Godless-Mimicry wrote: Firstly, no it doesn't look decently populated at all. That map clearly shows what I mean; everything is concentrated to the center and a huge portion of the map around the edges is bare. I've explored them in game too; there's nothing out there, not even enemies. Rather pointless really.
As for how the quest system is bad, I've already said how; because it makes the game more linear. And it differs from Fallout 3 because for half of the quests in the main story you need to travel half way across the wasteland several times over and explore new areas. There's no incentive to explore the game world unlike in Fallout 3, and for the record, I've tested it in both games. I comfortably completed NV in two days also, completely, that was of course on the 5th attempt to get it to finish without some silly glitch corrupting the save file or making the game unplayable.
In New Vegas you start things out in the suburbs and are almost immediately sent to the Strip and everything after that is either in NV itself or in locations right next to it, bar the trip down south to Caeser's place. In 3 after you've gotten to Megaton you have to trek half of the winding city to find 3 Dog, and then the other half of the city to get to Rivet City before you finally have to go back off into the desert to find dad.
As for the choice of New Vegas, with the exception of the very end none of those choices are of much consequence except thematically as the locations you go to and what you ultimately do on each quests is mostly the same. Sure this is no different in Fallout 3, but as I've said, 3 at least requires some adventure and trekking to get it done, making it more a quest than a chore.
YMMV, and some may prefer what NV brought to the table, but it was a game in a post-apocalyptic adventure series that had very little adventure and also very little upgrades compared to its predecessor. It wasn't a bad game at all, not by any stretch of the imagination, and is one of my favorite games, but it could have been so much more if they didn't rush it, and so 3 is where I will always go back to, and not NV.
Th edges of the map are blocked off by steep mountains and invisible walls. I don't see how you've even managed to get out of bounds.
No incentive to explore? You mean finding your way to prim, novac, boulder city and finally to new vegas where you need to find a way to ceasars camp which puts you in a quest to meet every tribe in the wasteland? The story takes you pretty much everywhere and side quests make sure you take a very through sweep around the area.
On the other hand fo3 never takes you to nothern side of the river (apart from city ruins) http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_3_map location you goto are: a1, j9, k2, g7 and city area.
SilverMK2 wrote: I much preferred 3 to NV. But then i prefer the lack of much civilisation in 3. Plus i enjoyed the story much more. NV felr more forced and farcical while 3s felt more natural and progressive and was better paced.
Better paced?!? You mean "POOF ENCLAVE!" is better paced?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/29 12:43:48
Every time I hear "in my opinion" or "just my opinion" makes me want to strangle a puppy. People use their opinions as a shield that other poeple can't critisize and that is bs.
If you can't defend or won't defend your opinion then that "opinion" is bs. Stop trying to tip-toe and defend what you believe in.
Better than working for each faction at the same time while apparently none of them seemed to question what you had been doing, then doing a couple more missions then finishing the game...
That whole faction thing in NV was far too loose and badly paced. The main quest and related side quests drove you along much better, imo, in 3.
What are you talking about? All of the factions notice if you too much help the other factions. They even threaten to remove you from their friend list if you don't stop.
As far as I know none of the sidequests were related in any way to the main quest in fo3
Every time I hear "in my opinion" or "just my opinion" makes me want to strangle a puppy. People use their opinions as a shield that other poeple can't critisize and that is bs.
If you can't defend or won't defend your opinion then that "opinion" is bs. Stop trying to tip-toe and defend what you believe in.
New text: KVNGR REV ALPHA PPS VT PIZ UHMYLPVOQ CM XHWMZP. NBJB SPI'F BYQS QT D'Y BYFGEOB FI VQDYL MAQ. -NGQHT 5120-
Translated: Keyed Vigenere cipher, passphrase Vault Tec: "THE INSTITUTE IS SEALED. THEY WON'T HELP US I'M HEADING TO BLACK ROW. -TBNLS 5120-"
New Morse Code: "Calling all stations, calling all stations, calling all stations. This is Overseer of Vault 119. Emergency. Unknown enemy. SOS SOS SOS. Vault 119. Quabbin. 7667. SOS SOS SOS. Vault 119. Quabbin. 7667. Enemy unkno-"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/01 23:50:31
New text:
KVNGR REV ALPHA PPS VT PIZ UHMYLPVOQ CM XHWMZP. NBJB SPI'F BYQS QT D'Y BYFGEOB FI VQDYL MAQ. -NGQHT 5120-
Translated:
Keyed Vigenere cipher, passphrase Vault Tec: "THE INSTITUTE IS SEALED. THEY WON'T HELP US I'M HEADING TO BLACK ROW. -TBNLS 5120-"
New Morse Code:
"Calling all stations, calling all stations, calling all stations. This is Overseer of Vault 119. Emergency. Unknown enemy. SOS SOS SOS. Vault 119. Quabbin. 7667. SOS SOS SOS. Vault 119. Quabbin. 7667. Enemy unkno-"
Interesting in that the Vaulters are needing to go to the Institute for help for some reason. The Institute being a closed environment doesn't strike me as a big thing, though whether its like Boulder Dome, or just a settlement that's closed off from the outside will be interesting.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/02 00:19:41
"I LIEK CHOCOLATE MILK" - Batman
"It exist because it needs to. Because its not the tank the imperium deserve but the one it needs right now . So it wont complain because it can take it. Because they're not our normal tank. It is a silent guardian, a watchful protector . A leman russ!" - Ilove40k
3k
2k
/ 1k
1k
KingCracker wrote: But Fallout is supposed to be a waste land. That's the point. If they rebuild, then it's a scify game, and will lose it's flavor.
Actually, I would argue that the point of the Fallout series is to explore how people would rebuild society after a great disaster, which is hampered by the cyclical nature of history (hence "War, War Never Changes"). In Fallout 1 and 2 and FNV people were rebuilding, but are threatened by some impending doom (The Master, Enclave, The Battle of Hoover Dam II).
I didn't really get that same feeling in FO3. There are just some odd settlements that shouldn't really exist :/ There is the threat of the Enclave (again), but it doesn't really matter since the settlements are pretty much dead anyway; there is no evidence of them having some sort of agriculture, and there are so many mutants and bandits roaming around that settlements outside of the Brotherhood of Steel's influence should have been destroyed quite a while back.
Oh, and Little Lamplight can go rot in a Centaur's belly. I hated that place >.<
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/12/02 12:49:22
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Fallout 3 sucked because they played it too safe. Whilst I was not a huge fan of the switch from a topdown isometric rpg to quasi FPS, I gave the format changing a pass because at the time I was happy that anything was happening with the Fallout license.
But far too much of the game was simply them softballing it in to draw in the nostalgia crowd. If you want to shift the setting across the country and a significant amount of time, change it up. But instead, we get supermutants, radscorpions, brahmin, bloatflies, the enclave, centaurs, floaters, geckos, and all manner of other stuff that has no business being in Washington DC.
They wanted to make their own version of Fallout, and yet they fell back over and over again to relying on the iconic ideas and images of the first two. So what we ended up with was a disingenuous and half arsed effort that lacked character.
New Vegas was a little better; at least they tried some new stuff and the throwbacks to the first two games made sense based on setting; but frankly the fact that Wasteland 2 is on the horizon makes the idea of buying whatever drivel Bethesda comes out with less than appetizing.
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
2013/12/10 16:03:24
Subject: Re:Fallout 4 - The Survivor 2299 Was A Hoax After All!
Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.
Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.
"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation
2013/12/10 18:18:24
Subject: Fallout 4 - The Survivor 2299 Was A Hoax After All!
3k
/ 
1k
1k 
Hopefully Obsidian will get a chance to make an expansion that fixes most of the problems with Bethesda's game design (but with less bugs this time please).
~4100
~1660
