-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Fallout New Vegas |OT| Obsidian does what Bethesdon't
- Thread starter disappeared
- Start date
I think I screwed myself in Dead Money by only keeping one save file. I'm at the part where I flip the switch to open the casino. I've got about 7% health, very little ammo, and no healing items. I'm trying to run past the ghost things, but I think I'm gonna have to use a really old save. 
Dead Money is really cool, but it can be a real grind. That might be some of my appeal to it though. Oh well. Hope to finish this off ASAP and start the new one.
Dead Money is really cool, but it can be a real grind. That might be some of my appeal to it though. Oh well. Hope to finish this off ASAP and start the new one.Danne-Danger
Member
Ooh! That's a fun idea. I think I'm gonna do a Rutger Hauer run as well!Dr. Chaos said:
bababouille
Member
CANADA!water_wendi said:
RoninChaos
Member
I still have this game in the shrink wrap for the 360. Should I bother with it, or is there another patch coming out? I don't want to deal with playing the game, getting an expansion and not having it work like some people have complained about.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
The Commonwealth doesnt really do much for me. Chicago.. been there, done that. Detroit though.. i like it.Lakitu said:
Canada i could see working especially if there is setup in a previous game. Like say we might see some of Canada if we ever get Fallout Online (Seattle) or a Commonwealth game. Personally i think it might be a more interesting setting if it was seen after annexation and before the bombs.bababouille said:
Its funny but there hasnt really been mention of NYC at all in Fallout. i could see how a setting there would make the game be more upwards instead of outwards in terms of scope.
i have to agree with you about Detroit. It really fits Fallout.tokkun said:
Its funny you mention this, i was just starting up a playthrough the other day and when i triggered ED-Es dialogue at the Gibson Scrapyard it caught my notice this time. i was like "Chicago, huh?" Makes me kind of wonder at what was planned for them out there.. especially if Tactics is in any way canon.Dr. Chaos said:
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I think the obvious choice would be China, but I guess that's a lose-lose proposition for everyone, since I doubt anyone would play a game that's either in Mandarin or in bad Chinese accents.
It'd be nice to see how the "enemy" has coped with the post-apocalypse though.
It'd be nice to see how the "enemy" has coped with the post-apocalypse though.
Danne-Danger
Member
There's no way they'd take a risk like that, so much of what Fallout is stems from 50s America, putting it in China would remove all of that. It'd be an all-out franchise suicide.firehawk12 said:
Let Bioware handle China.
My bet would be somewhere with mountains, in the north, since they'll probably build on the new elder scrolls engine.
water_wendi said:
I hope back east once again. Or at least in and around a major city. The ruins of DC were great to explore. The wide open space in New Vegas tended to be very boring. Actual ruins really play up the apocalyptic nature of the world better.
What I would like to see in a future game is a detail that seems to be overlooked. If people have been living in an area for a while why are they living in filth? If I was living in a bombed out town for years at a time I'd at least hope I and others would have tried to take the time to clean up a little. Remove skeletons from the areas. Create a junk pile to make room for some rebuilding. If not outside but inside of the homes. No reason should the homes if occupied look like the bombs felt yesterday if people have been there for a few years.
codswallop
Member
I don't think Fallout is Fallout without the western and desert setting. Fallout 3 was great fun and all, but the different setting didn't feel Fallout-y to me.
Why not San Diego, Tijuana or Texas?
Why not San Diego, Tijuana or Texas?
I'm thinking about getting into the Fallout series soon with Fallout 3 for ps3. My only concern are the bugs that I remember hearing about when the game was first launched. Were those addressed?
I can tolerate a few but I don't want to waste my money on a product that freezes every thirty minutes or so.
I can tolerate a few but I don't want to waste my money on a product that freezes every thirty minutes or so.
codswallop
Member
If he's concerned about bugs, I think that might just be the wrong advice (I prefer New Vegas, too).duckroll said:
codswallop
Member
I found New Vegas significantly buggier than Fallout 3. In fact, I played Fallout 3 for over 40 hours before I ran into a bug, and that only occurred after installing all the DLC. That said, I bought New Vegas a lot closer to release.duckroll said:
If you're into exploration, I think Fallout 3 is the better game. New Vegas is better for those preferring story-based questing. Overall I'd choose New Vegas, but I enjoyed my time in DC as well.
Considering the original poster was asking about the PS3 version, i think this might be slightly misleading as i hear the PC version of vegas is hell of a lot more stable than either of the console versions.duckroll said:
I did hear fallout 3 on playstation 3 was significantly more buggy and has more problems generally than the 360 / PC version, not so sure about vegas ps3 in comparison to the others though.
aerts1js said:
To be honest, from what I understand the PS3 version of FO3 GotY edition had a lot of problems. I think it is a great game but there were definitely a lot of folks that experienced issues with the PS3 version, though I guess that could be said of all versions. Unfortunately that goes for NV and the rest of the series as well - quite frankly there are no Fallout games that don't have their fair share of bugs. I don't think you're going to encounter lock ups every thirty minutes, but I guarantee you the jank will find you at some point or another.
That said, there isn't any point waiting for a Fallout that doesn't carry that burden, because it isn't going to happen. Personally it's never been anywhere near enough to deter me from playing any of them (even as someone who did video game QA for the better part of a decade). Just a question of whether you think you'd enjoy what's there enough to deal with it.
water_wendi said:
FUCK YES. This. Please. I've been playing some Assassin's Creed II lately (backlog ahoy) and I keep wishing for something like it in the post-apocalyptic setting. A really big, 'friendly' living city is something I'd really like to see in a next Fallout. Something not just shot to pieces with people living in the ruins, but something were there's a a true economy going on, people producing and building new stuff, etc.
I love the vastness of F3 and NV, especially with F3 it was really something completely new and exciting for me. But I'd also love to have a relatively compact 'hostile' city, 'deep' (sewers, underground shelters, bunkers) and 'high' (skyscrapers and such) city. Rage's Dead City trailer really did it for me in that regard.
A matter of time, I hope. Also, with the success story Fallout is being for Bethesda I can't imagine them being the only ones in this subgenre. I like the Fallout lore but I'm definitely game for something more grounded in reality.
Old Gimlet Eyes
Member
I wouldn't even waste my time with FO3. New Vegas is such a better game and can be found for cheap now.aerts1js said:
Duckroll sums it up nicely, do you want a shitty game with bugs, or do you want the best RPG of all time (new vegas), also with bugs?
bonesmccoy
Banned
water_wendi said:
Since FOT games aren't considered canon, we could see a return to the Midwest. The only thing is that, geographically, the Midwest is not an interesting place. And it lacks the landmarks that made the Capitol Wasteland an interesting place.
If I were Bethesda, I'd want to pull out the stops and set in Boston or the New York area.
aerts1js said:
It really depends on what you like and dislike. I see the two games this way. FO3 is more of a cinematic story. F:NV is more of a collection of events with you determining the winner in the end. Your actions (good, evil, neutral) have a greater impact in New Vegas due to the faction system. You can choose how you respond in FO3 but the main story is still going to progress though with different dialogue options. You can completely shut yourself off from quest in New Vegas depending on your actions. More choice is good but I do feel it comes with a price as New Vegas feels all over the place at times. There isn't a strong push and the pacing is bad. If FO3 is cinematic/movie like then New Vegas is episodic in nature. One style isn't better then the other but it comes down to what you just happen to like more. At least I think this is an okay way of looking at it.
New Vegas might have better changes under the hood in regards to how stats work and gun modifications though. I don't think they really matter all that much when it comes to picking between the two games as they aren't what you'll be thinking about majority of the time.
Aklamarth said:
Only once.
A playthrough of the game should net you at least 100 or so crashes. As I've said a few pages back, a major one seems to be the raid between the NCR and the Caesar wannabe dudes. I've gotten no less than 50 crashes at that part.
Anyway. Is PSN store up yet? It's been a months since I could play the game. It sucks that I can't play the game without the PSN store being up.
evilromero
Member
Ok, question for the FO vets here. I loved FO3 and want to try out New Vegas but I've heard it's buggy as hell. Is this something Obsidian has resolved with recent updates and does it really hinder the experience? Thanks.
harriet the spy
Member
I'd be curious to know the percentages of people who sided with each camp. I can't decide, but I have to say that
the wild card path sounds the most appealing, if only because so few games offer that as an option
indigo-cyclops
Member
How annoying that I have to empty most of my inventory to play the new DLC. What the fuck, it will take me forever with no proper EMPTY ALL button. Anyone know a way I can do this quickly?
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
There is only the one Tactics game and the events were referenced in Fallout 3 so that makes it canon. FFS if the East Coast Super Mutants are canon, Vault 0 sure as fuck better be.bonesmccoy said:
HadesGigas
Member
INDIGO_CYCLOPS said:
You can carry 75 or 100 weight with you to Zion.
How much do you carry? Just put away all but a few of your guns and the ammo associated with them and that should save you a lot of space. Then if you're in hardcore mode, I'd say you don't need to bring much in the way of food or water, plenty of fresh river water to drink geckos to eat in Zion.
What the fuck, I just started this game and when I go to see Sunny Springs - ie the very first damn thing you do in the game - I start getting blasted by 2 settlers before I can even get the rifle from Sunny.
I have heard about how buggy the game is but is this common? Do I have to restart?
I have heard about how buggy the game is but is this common? Do I have to restart?
ThirdEngine
Member
I've had Powder Gangers spawn right in front of me before near Goodsprings Source. Just have to roll with the punches.AShep said:
On another note, I'm wanting to start over and roll a character that specializes in Energy Weapons. But since this will still be my first playthrough, is that a bad idea instead of going Guns? Also, how important is it to concentrate on combat skills (Guns/EW) as opposed to things like Speech/Lockpick/Science in early game? I definitely have trouble with point distribution. I've read that high Perception and Luck are almost crucial to a good EW build. Is that true?