Support NeoGAF

[ElFly]

Wow. Thats a crazy way of putting it. When the credits rolled for Fallout 3 my exact words were "WHAT THE FUCK?" and i shut the game off in disgust. When the slides ended for NV i felt very satisfied and most of all i felt a sense of completion.

I am not too fond of the FMV ending to FO3 either, but enjoyed being able to keep going in Broken Steel, even though I am not a fan of the actual keep-stomping-on-the-enclave plot, all the stuff you do with Scribe Bigsley is pretty great, and a good show of how your actions changed the wasteland.

Being able to see these things in person will always be better than watching a FMV, no matter how personalized it is.

It's not that it's not finished, they just had no intentions of letting you play after they final credits, before the releases of the game they made this clear. They said it was pretty much for the reason you started. They felt too much changed in the wasteland after the final mission to warrant letting players go back into it.

I never paid much attention to the prerelease hype, cause I didn't want to spoil myself.

I guess the trade off about letting you choose factions vs letting you play after the game finished was in favor of the factions, and the factions are easily THE best feature of NV over FO3, but I still feel cheated.

 

[duckroll]

I'm never falling into this trap by modern RPGs where a game comes out with a DLC planned over months after release, and then eventually a full compilation about a year later (Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout: NV, DA 1, DA 2). Skyrm is going to be the same way.

GTA, RDR, AC are other big franchises who also do this. I agree that it's a new sort of business practice which isn't entirely consumer friendly, but what I do is ask myself if I actually find the initial release worth the full price. If so, I don't mind paying more over a period of time just to get to play the content immediately. If not, then waiting for the GOTY release is probably a better deal.

 

[Ickman3400]

OBSIDIAN FOREVER! MY BROTHERS RALLY BEHIND ME AND FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT!

I'm with you. There's not a sensible argument around for F3 being better than NV other than the cheap "well..I just liked it more" one.

Also, yay may 17! I'll have something to do while Witcher 2 takes 4 hours to download!

 

[water_wendi]

I am not too fond of the FMV ending to FO3 either, but enjoyed being able to keep going in Broken Steel, even though I am not a fan of the actual keep-stomping-on-the-enclave plot, all the stuff you do with Scribe Bigsley is pretty great, and a good show of how your actions changed the wasteland.

Being able to see these things in person will always be better than watching a FMV, no matter how personalized it is.

Its not even the FMV or whatever. Its that the ending for FO3 felt like it came way too fast. FO3 vanilla feels incomplete. Surprise, surprise, when Bethesda announced Broken Steel. Its no wonder FO3s story felt truncated.

 

[Captain Tuttle]

YOU HAVE MY RIPPER!

And my Power Fist!

 

[ElFly]

Its not even the FMV or whatever. Its that the ending for FO3 felt like it came way too fast. FO3 vanilla feels incomplete. Surprise, surprise, when Bethesda announced Broken Steel. Its no wonder FO3s story felt truncated.

*shrug* ok. Good thing that broken steel exists.

 

[-BLITZ-]

I'm so glad to see Bethesda giving so much information and all the details you want to know for the upcoming DLC. Burned Man is introduced from the rumours we knew so far, can't wait to see how Big Empty will look like in all his glory and Ulysses is back into the game; the first character with cornrows hair.
From what I could tell, Bethesda made great choices with this projects by keeping their ideas without giving up from them, making a much better connection with New Vegas storyline than Fallout 3 DLC.

I Love the new, New Vegas more and more ...

 

[OnlyWonderBoy]

I am not too fond of the FMV ending to FO3 either, but enjoyed being able to keep going in Broken Steel, even though I am not a fan of the actual keep-stomping-on-the-enclave plot, all the stuff you do with Scribe Bigsley is pretty great, and a good show of how your actions changed the wasteland.

Being able to see these things in person will always be better than watching a FMV, no matter how personalized it is.



I never paid much attention to the prerelease hype, cause I didn't want to spoil myself.

I guess the trade off about letting you choose factions vs letting you play after the game finished was in favor of the factions, and the factions are easily THE best feature of NV over FO3, but I still feel cheated.

I defiantly agree with you there. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. Really all you would have to do is replace any locations with wiped out factions with Raiders or something.

 

[Lothars]

New Vegas is ten times the game Fallout 3 was, especially to true Fallout fans. Obsidian designing a game to their strengths and to their style does not mean it is a bad thing. If Bethesda fans don't like it, too bad, stick to Bethesda's crappy pseuda-RPGs.

It's not though, New Vegas is a great game but I feel it doesn't beat the atmosphere or feeling of Fallout 3 which was fanatastic and I would consider myself a "true" fallout fan and have played every single fallout game many times over but just comparing New Vegas to Fallout 3, I prefer Fallout 3 but that's why I am looking forward to New Vegas DLC because I hope that it's fantastic.

 

[Old Gimlet Eyes]

Really looking forward to all of the DLC's. Dead Money was awesome from both a story and gameplay point of view. I also liked at how it hinted at all these upcoming DLC's as well, made me even more interested in them.

Also, New Vegas is a much better game than Fallout 3. Hardcore mode alone can qualify that, let alone all the other gameplay additions.

It's not though, New Vegas is a great game but I feel it doesn't beat the atmosphere or feeling of Fallout 3 which was fanatastic and I would consider myself a "true" fallout fan and have played every single fallout game many times over but just comparing New Vegas to Fallout 3, I prefer Fallout 3 but that's why I am looking forward to New Vegas DLC because I hope that it's fantastic.

Things like Hardcore mode, Damage Threshold, multiple ammo types, weapon mods, iron sights and improved melee combat make it hard for me to play FO3 after NV. Not to mention the glorious speech skill in NV....

 

[duckroll]

I defiantly agree with you there. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. Really all you would have to do is replace any locations with wiped out factions with Raiders or something.

That would be exactly what I don't want to see as a roleplaying fan. That cheapens the entire scenario and setting just to give some players the ability to "explore around after the game ends." Instead New Vegas made a strong design decision to actually end the game when it... ends. If you don't like it... TOO BAD!

It's not though, New Vegas is a great game but I feel it doesn't beat the atmosphere or feeling of Fallout 3 which was fanatastic and I would consider myself a "true" fallout fan and have played every single fallout game many times over but just comparing New Vegas to Fallout 3, I prefer Fallout 3 but that's why I am looking forward to New Vegas DLC because I hope that it's fantastic.

Well errr... you're wrong! What more do you want me to say?

 

[Lothars]

I'm with you. There's not a sensible argument around for F3 being better than NV other than the cheap "well..I just liked it more" one.

Your one to talk about that? Of course there's arguments to F3 being better than NV, both NV and F3 have there strengths and weaknesses.

 

[OnlyWonderBoy]

It's not though, New Vegas is a great game but I feel it doesn't beat the atmosphere or feeling of Fallout 3 which was fanatastic and I would consider myself a "true" fallout fan and have played every single fallout game many times over but just comparing New Vegas to Fallout 3, I prefer Fallout 3 but that's why I am looking forward to New Vegas DLC because I hope that it's fantastic.

I agree the Capital Wasteland was a good location, but I hated the subway system nonsense which really broke my immersion with the game. The Mojave felt was more natural because you could walk almost anywhere without a loading screen (I'm looking at you Vault 3). Also I didn't find the story of Fallout 3 really that compelling.

 

[Lothars]

Well errr... you're wrong! What more do you want me to say?

Lol Nothing , it's ok

Just difference of opinion, you can't be always right

 

[duckroll]

Your one to talk about that? Of course there's arguments to F3 being better than NV, both NV and F3 have there strengths and weaknesses.

New Vegas' only weakness is that it doesn't pander to Fallout 3 fans.

 

[Effect]

Does the ending for New Vegas make it impossible for a Broken Steel type of DLC to take place?

Needing one to load from a previous save to get to this content sounds so frustrating. Especially if they knew they were going to be releasing content like this. They should at lease make complete self-contained. Make all the content selectable from a menu and you just import your character with a message saying the events you are about to exxperience took place before your final battle.

 

[water_wendi]

Anyone that thinks FO3 is better in any way over NV is either trolling, never played NV, or out of the god damned mind. Either one is a clear signal to ignore any opinions on games/books/movies. Its like when someone tries to tell you about how the Celestine Prophecy is the best book. Just nod and walk away as fast as you can.

Does the ending for New Vegas make it impossible for a Broken Steel type of DLC to take place?

The ending for NV shows whats become of the Mojave Wasteland years into the future. Its basically a ten minute slideshow of how your legacy pans out in the end.

 

[crimsonheadGCN]

Are they ever going to re-enable Steam Cloud saves for the game? It sucks that they had to disable it. Thought they would have worked out the kinks to their implementation of it in NV by now.

 

[Kurtofan]

I can't get enough Fallout New Vegas, such a fantastic game.

 

[Ickman3400]

Your one to talk about that? Of course there's arguments to F3 being better than NV, both NV and F3 have there strengths and weaknesses.

By all means try to impress me.

And no you can't use "atmosphere" as a reason. That is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post with "I...just like it better". Atmosphere is an extremely vague thing that means something different to everyone.

Concrete stuff only.

 

[Acosta]

OBSIDIAN FOREVER! MY BROTHERS RALLY BEHIND ME AND FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT!

You have my sledgehammer!

 

[OnlyWonderBoy]

The ending for NV shows whats become of the Mojave Wasteland years into the future. Its basically a ten minute slideshow of how your legacy pans out in the end.

Which could easily just not happen when you beat the final boss and roll straight into the DLC, but for whatever reason Obsidian is against this idea.

 

[Count of Monte Sawed-Off]

I agree the Capital Wasteland was a good location, but I hated the subway system nonsense which really broke my immersion with the game. The Mojave felt was more natural because you could walk almost anywhere without a loading screen (I'm looking at you Vault 3). Also I didn't find the story of Fallout 3 really that compelling.

The subway system really did hurt Fallout 3, that and the story, but I actually kind of liked exploring its wasteland slightly more than New Vegas.

New Vegas is at its core a much better game than Fallout 3, but suffers from way more bugs that they're not going to be fix and can't be worked around (this is for the 360 version, I know it's a non-issue on PC).

 

[water_wendi]

Which could easily just not happen when you beat the final boss and roll straight into the DLC, but for whatever reason Obsidian is against this idea.

They are against bad ideas, yes its true.

Making it where you have to buy DLC to see the ending is a horrible fucking idea. The game should stand on its own by itself. Not a tool to get more money from the players so you can finally see the ending.

 

[Lothars]

By all means try to impress me.

And no you can't use "atmosphere" as a reason. That is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post with "I...just like it better". Atmosphere is an extremely vague thing that means something different to everyone.

Concrete stuff only.

I am not trying to impress you or I will not get into this with you because I can't help it that we are just of two different opinions and that's not gonna change, I won't change your opinion and you won't change mine.

 

[OnlyWonderBoy]

By all means try to impress me.

And no you can't use "atmosphere" as a reason. That is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post with "I...just like it better". Atmosphere is an extremely vague thing that means something different to everyone.

Concrete stuff only.

Well for me the story and history was just way more engaging. Listening to all the NPC's talk about the different factions and their history before you even started playing the game was really interesting. In comparison the story of the BOS vs the Enclave in FO3 seems kind of flat and uninspired. With two games where the mechanics are almost identical, it's those kind of things that really set them apart.

 

[Kurtofan]

Which could easily just not happen when you beat the final boss and roll straight into the DLC, but for whatever reason Obsidian is against this idea.

It makes the story sounds trivial, I want a slideshow and I don't want all my actions to become fruitless.

 

[OnlyWonderBoy]

They are against bad ideas, yes its true.

Making it where you have to buy DLC to see the ending is a horrible fucking idea. The game should stand on its own by itself. Not a tool to get more money from the players so you can finally see the ending.

I didn't even mean it had to be a direct story extension like Broken Steel was, maybe just some quests that revolve around the changes that happen in the Mojave after the game ends. Not story crucial stuff, but worth checking out depending on how invested you are in the Fallout universe.

 

[Effect]

Anyone that thinks FO3 is better in any way over NV is either trolling, never played NV, or out of the god damned mind. Either one is a clear signal to ignore any opinions on games/books/movies. Its like when someone tries to tell you about how the Celestine Prophecy is the best book. Just nod and walk away as fast as you can.


The ending for NV shows whats become of the Mojave Wasteland years into the future. Its basically a ten minute slideshow of how your legacy pans out in the end.

Bad design since they knew DLC was going to be made after the original game was released. Seeing how Fallout 3's DLC was handled I wonder why no one called out OE during development in regard to this. Did they have that much freedom when developing this?

 

[duckroll]

Bad design since they knew DLC was going to be made after the original game was released. Seeing how Fallout 3's DLC was handled I wonder why no one called out OE during development in regard to this. Did they have that much freedom when developing this?

I don't see how DIFFERENT design is BAD design. It's fine to say that you don't like it. I may not respect that opinion, but it's one I can accept as something different which I will never understand. But how can you say it is BAD design just because they knew DLC was going to be made? They simply designed the DLC to be very different in design because of the decision they made with the original game.

 

[kamspy]

Does the ending for New Vegas make it impossible for a Broken Steel type of DLC to take place?

Needing one to load from a previous save to get to this content sounds so frustrating. Especially if they knew they were going to be releasing content like this. They should at lease make complete self-contained. Make all the content selectable from a menu and you just import your character with a message saying the events you are about to exxperience took place before your final battle.

Before you go on the last stretch in New Vegas the game advises you to make a save, and that you will be starting a series of irreversible events. Everyone who's finished the game has a save right before the last mission. Shouldn't be hard at all.

 

[OnlyWonderBoy]

Bad design since they knew DLC was going to be made after the original game was released. Seeing how Fallout 3's DLC was handled I wonder why no one called out OE during development in regard to this. Did they have that much freedom when developing this?

http://www.destructoid.com/fallout-new-vegas-has-a-definitive-end-181927.phtml

 

[Morokh]

DLC available on steam means Steam deals !

<<< Happy camper !

 

[water_wendi]

Bad design since they knew DLC was going to be made after the original game was released. Seeing how Fallout 3's DLC was handled I wonder why no one called out OE during development in regard to this. Did they have that much freedom when developing this?

Its not bad design when you can purchase NV off the shelf and complete it without having to get DLC to finish the experience.

 

[Lothars]

Anyone that thinks FO3 is better in any way over NV is either trolling, never played NV, or out of the god damned mind. Either one is a clear signal to ignore any opinions on games/books/movies. Its like when someone tries to tell you about how the Celestine Prophecy is the best book. Just nod and walk away as fast as you can.

I have played NV, I have played it on both 360 and PC and beat it on 360 and I think that Fallout 3 does some things better than NV, I prefer the Capital Wasteland just the feeling and overall experience of the Capital Wasteland not that the Mojave Desert was bad but I don't think it captured the same feeling, I think the unique events or places that you come across in Fallout 3 are better than NV, I think the Companions are pretty equal in both games and there are some characters in Fallout 3 that I think are just outstanding but NV has great characters as well and NV does have hardcore mode which is a nice addition to the gameplay.

I think you can't just write off Fallout 3 because you didn't like it and say that anyone that thinks it has some better stuff than New Vegas is insane because it's not true.

Edit: I think one of the biggest issues I have with New Vegas is how buggy it was and didn't seem to work that great the whole time playing it but I love all the Fallout games anyway.

 

[Shin Dynamo X]

Soooo...GOTY edition in August?

Yeah, pretty much.

That seems to be the trend these days and it's a damn good one at that! With the many bugs I have been hearing about this game, it quickly plummeted in price. The poor Q&A really hurts it reputation, and makes no sense making DLC when the core game is so flawed.

GOTY version FTW.

 

[duckroll]

I have played NV, I have played it on both 360 and PC and beat it on 360 and I think that Fallout 3 does some things better than NV, I prefer the Capital Wasteland just the feeling and overall experience of the Capital Wasteland not that the Mojave Desert was bad but I don't think it captured the same feeling, I think the unique events or places that you come across in Fallout 3 are better than NV, I think the Companions are pretty equal in both games and there are some characters in Fallout 3 that I think are just outstanding but NV has great characters as well and NV does have hardcore mode which is a nice addition to the gameplay.

I think you can't just write off Fallout 3 because you didn't like it and say that anyone that thinks it has some better stuff than New Vegas is insane because it's not true.

I would say it's pretty fair to say that people who wanted something more exotic in terms of art direction or and event/location design would prefer the setting of FO3 over NV. FO3 is far less subtle, more over the top, and very typical of the sort of Bethesda design which I dislike. The same people who feel this way would probably also find that the Mojave setting is less... interesting and maybe even boring.

This is a fight that no one can win, because it's simply a matter of taste. Since I am on the side of Obsidian, I will fight to death defending the design decisions and characters in NV. Ultimately I think it's one of those arguments were everyone just has to agree to disagree because it would go nowhere.

 

[water_wendi]

I have played NV, I have played it on both 360 and PC and beat it on 360 and I think that Fallout 3 does some things better than NV, I prefer the Capital Wasteland just the feeling and overall experience of the Capital Wasteland not that the Mojave Desert was bad but I don't think it captured the same feeling, I think the unique events or places that you come across in Fallout 3 are better than NV, I think the Companions are pretty equal in both games and there are some characters in Fallout 3 that I think are just outstanding but NV has great characters as well and NV does have hardcore mode which is a nice addition to the gameplay.

I think you can't just write off Fallout 3 because you didn't like it and say that anyone that thinks it has some better stuff than New Vegas is insane because it's not true.

i can and i have wrote off Fallout 3. The story, the dialogue, the setting, its place within Fallout lore, the enemies, the combat system, the horrible shooting game.. basically anything in Fallout 3 that wasnt already established in previous games is horrible, almost beyond belief. The only two things that Bethesda did right was the radio (very good idea) and letting Obsidian use the franchise.

Edit: I think one of the biggest issues I have with New Vegas is how buggy it was and didn't seem to work that great the whole time playing it but I love all the Fallout games anyway.

New Vegas is Alleycat compared to Fallout 3. i had maybe 10-20 crashes in however many hours of NV. In Fallout 3 i had a crash every five minutes until i got a 3rd party application to fix it. Even then the crashes still came but every 30min-1hour instead. Fallout 3 is by far the buggiest piece of shit game ive ever played. Its much buggier than unpatched Daggerfall which is a feat all its own.

 

[The Quiet Man]

I really enjoyed Dead Money, so I'm getting these on release. Excited!

 

[duckroll]

The only two things that Bethesda did right was the radio (very good idea) and letting Obsidian use the franchise.

BROFIST.jpg

<listens to Big Iron loop 30 times while hacking a computer>

 

[Ickman3400]

I am not trying to impress you or I will not get into this with you because I can't help it that we are just of two different opinions and that's not gonna change, I won't change your opinion and you won't change mine.

That seems like a bit of a cop out to me since you said duckroll was wrong that NV was better. I get opinions and all that, but rpg fans can see one is clearly better than the other in most categories so I would have liked to see what you thought was better.

Was it the story of the angelic BoS vs the evil enclave and super mutants? The story that you could only finish in 1 major way but with a couple minor differences that had no affect on your previous choices and the rest of the world?

Was it the combat that forced you to use vats since regular was so broken?

Was it the lack of rpg elements that F3 had?


You know...stuff like that is what I wanted to see.

 

[Acosta]

Why every NV thread must become some kind of NV vs FO 3 battlefield?

Just accept New Vegas is infinitely better than Fallout 3 a and a true sequel to the series and keep on with your lives. There is nothing to discuss here.

 

[OnlyWonderBoy]

That seems like a bit of a cop out to me since you said duckroll was wrong that NV was better. I get opinions and all that, but rpg fans can see one is clearly better than the other in most categories so I would have liked to see what you thought was better.

Was it the story of the angelic BoS vs the evil enclave and super mutants? The story that you could only finish in 1 major way but with a couple minor differences that had no affect on your previous choices and the rest of the world?

Was it the combat that forced you to use vats since regular was so broken?

Was it the lack of rpg elements that F3 had?


You know...stuff like that is what I wanted to see.

Yeah, that's what I said earlier, kind of soured my opinion of the whole game.

 

[tokkun]

Anyone that thinks FO3 is better in any way over NV is either trolling, never played NV, or out of the god damned mind.

1. I prefer the more oppressive, lonelier feel of FO3's Capital Wasteland over the Mojave Desert. CW is more evocative of the feel of post-apocalyptic literature like The Road. FO3 actually feels like the end of the world. NV does not.

2. The locale is more interesting. The destroyed monuments are more provocative to players than Vegas's strip - particularly because keeping the Strip undamaged makes it more obvious that it is a half-assed rendition of the real thing.

3. FO3 had much better set pieces - the assault on the GNR building, Raven Rock, Liberty Prime.

4. Since so much material in NV was recycled from FO3, it felt a lot fresher the first time around

 

[SCHUEY F1]

Please bump the level cap again and make the amount of xp needed for each level much, much higher.

 

[kamspy]

Damn. I never thought they'd get their hands back on the series, still, it's sad to see it taken away again. Gonna pick up all the DLCs.

Salute Obsidian/Black Isle Fallout games.

 

[Ickman3400]

Please bump the level cap again and make the amount of xp needed for each level much, much higher.

It seems like the cap will eventually be 50, as in 5 extra levels per DLC. Every raise level mod that I'm aware of is locked at 50 even if the mod claims to go higher. I think when Dead Money came out it locked it for some reason and no one seems to be able to ge past it yet.

I tried a level 100 and a level 60 mod and they were both capped at 50.

 

[duckroll]

1. I prefer the more oppressive, lonelier feel of FO3's Capital Wasteland over the Mojave Desert. CW is more evocative of the feel of post-apocalyptic literature like The Road. FO3 actually feels like the end of the world. NV does not.

But Fallout has never been about the end of the world. What you're saying goes against the very nature of the series. It's not about the end of the world or a lonely existence. It is about the rebirth of the world after a worldwide nuclear devastation. The series is set hundreds of years after the bombs fell. Society has rebuilt itself in various ways. There are factions, towns, and cities. There is a government rising in the West. There is technology being salvaged and studied. There is trade.

The Fallout world is not really the lonely and oppressive place you seem to think it is.

2. The locale is more interesting. The destroyed monuments are more provocative to players than Vegas's strip - particularly because keeping the Strip undamaged makes it more obvious that it is a half-assed rendition of the real thing.

Okay, see what I said about. Matter of taste.

3. FO3 had much better set pieces - the assault on the GNR building, Raven Rock, Liberty Prime.

You know what has better set pieces than Fallout 3? Modern Warfare 2 and Killzone 3.

4. Since so much material in NV was recycled from FO3, it felt a lot fresher the first time around

GTA:SA had a ton of material recycled from GTA3 in the same way. That didn't stop it from being one of the most well-liked games in the GTA franchise.

 

[dionysus]

i can and i have wrote off Fallout 3. The story, the dialogue, the setting, its place within Fallout lore, the enemies, the combat system, the horrible shooting game.. basically anything in Fallout 3 that wasnt already established in previous games is horrible, almost beyond belief. The only two things that Bethesda did right was the radio (very good idea) and letting Obsidian use the franchise.

Don't forget their biggest contribution, resurrecting the Fallout franchise so that a game like NV could be made.

 

[K.Sabot]

Obsidian has inside info that PSN will be back up before May 17?!!?!!