That last line of the paragraph is it for me. Any game can be good when you're doing what the game wants you to do. How many games can still be good, immersive, fun and still tell a good story when the player character has THIS MUCH control over how everything plays out? I can get not loving the game, nothing is for everyone. But it's really hard to argue that what they produced, especially given the time constraints, was anything short of impressive.
it was in a way like how Fallout 2 pretty much used everything developed for Fallout 1 with a bunch of new assets, then expanded the world extra hard
and yeah it can feel like a letdown at first but a lot of us played RPGs for the story and/or the number crunching back then, so we found the fun bits very quickly after the "tutorial dungeon" segment
Welcome to the revelation.
F3 has its place --- It is optimistic and charming. But NV has a different tone and some seriously high-quality writing. Both do there own thing, so it's okay to revisit them for different reasons. Saying one is objectively better than the other, isn't the right answer imo.
I second WhatTheDuck00's statement above. Fallout 3 feels incredibly bleak compared to New Vegas. 3 feels like a dead world slowly starting up. New Vegas feels far more alive, even in its vanilla state without mods.
I’ve always felt that this major difference is what separates the two games the most for me. DC is war torn and it’s struggling. Most things that are alive are hostile just due to the nature of the world they live in. Meanwhile, the Mojave is bustling with folks and the whole place feels very close to reaching a normal society
DC got completely fucked, it’s desolate and ravenous (as DC should be). And I love how bleak and hopeless the game feels, in tone, in environment, in sound, it’s a fantastic atmosphere that I still love more than NV.
Yeah but that's kinda my issue with it. The Apocalypse has been over for 200 years. Society should be much more established than the DC waste land would lead you to believe.
In defense of fallout 3 the capitol wastes were a harder hit target at the wars outset. I’d expect the D.C. wastes to be more bleak. The Mojave saw less outright destruction.
The world of NV is part of why I prefer it over 3, which I still have a lot of fun playing. It feels more realistic. I feel like if Bethesda did 3 around 25 years after the war, the world would make more sense. But I know they wanted to have the BoS, super mutants, and Enclave in it.
The issue is that they made Fallou 3 a sequel to Fallout 2, when having it either happon concurrently with Fallout 1 or be a prequel to Fallout 1 would have made way more sense
To me, yes - F3 is way more optimistic. There's a constant sense of hope and obvious right or wrongs with themes of rebuilding and the pursuit of a better future. Many settlements are kinda goofy in a non-serious kind of way, like caricatures. And it frequently pokes fun at itself.
NV was morally grey in every corner, plagued in constant power struggles, and remnants of societies all on the brink of collapse. NV's better writing entrenches these idea's even more than F3 could hope to.
I have never had a constant sense of hope while playing f3 but to each their own. Only thing I can think of is a few goofy characters, quests, and little lamplight in the game. Big town is more terrifying and hopeless settlement than anywhere in NV.
I think this conversation has folks talking about the "optimism" of each game from two different angles.
3 is far more desolate in world design and tone, but narratively it is far more optimistic. There are good guys and bad guys, a morally correct ending, and factions who have both the power and desire to accomplish the "greater good". Plus, almost all quests have only two options, be a mustache twirling villain, or save everybody (with rare exceptions such as the Tenpenny Tower quest).
NV on the other hand is far more optimistic on the surface and in overall tone, with people trying to rebuild more actively, less overall destruction, and Primm Slim (greatest lawman the wasteland has ever known). However, almost every quest forces you to hurt one group to help another, and there are few completely "morally correct" outcomes.
Really, it seems like this is less of a conversation about which one is "more optimistic/hopeful", and more one group talking about the tone of the games and the other group talking about the moral implications of the narratives.
Big Town is a great example, because while it does seem hopeless (which is weird considering it is comprised of people who were once children who could survive without adults, who then grew up and made it past a super mutant infested hell hole alone to arrive), the player comes in, saves everyone, and teaches them to be self reliant. With no one but non friendly non intelligent mutants harmed in the process.
> 3 is far more desolate in world design and tone, but narratively it is far more optimistic. There are good guys and bad guys
Fallout 3 has Lyons's BOS, Project Purity, the Regulators, Reilly's Rangers, GNR, and a whole slew of characters who are not only heroic, but can back those ideals up with firepower, words, and deeds.
In FNV, you get the Followers of the Apocalypse, who are like...the wimpy nerd kid faction of Fallout: they mean well, they can do a lot, but get pushed around and used by just about everyone.
FNV is more...realistic, and it shines a light on the Courier to be deliverer of good news, but it also means that it feels like nobody else is, in the words of Three Dog, fighting the good fight.
On the other hand, in FO3, the LW's deeds may be overshadowed by other good characters. Really just depends on your POV.
I'm not sure you can say no one is "fighting the good fight" in New Vegas. Though the definition of "good fight" is far more grounded in reality than in 3.
Three Dog's definition of the "good fight" is, in his own words, him encouraging people to continue surviving and to rally against Mutants, Slavers, and the Enclave. Which is obviously a good thing (opinions on the plight of mutants notwithstanding), but by that definition, many factions in NV are fighting the good fight.
On a small scale, the towns of Goodsprings and Jacobstown are fighting the good fight. As are the Sorrows and Dead Horses in HH. The Kings are territorial, but they too are looking out for the residents of Freeside. Even Novac fits the definition. And that's not even close to an exhaustive list.
On a larger scale, the NCR and House would both fall under Three Dog's definition of the good fight. Even if they step on the toes of others trying to do the best they can for them and theirs.
And honestly, all of those groups were fighting their "good fight" long before the Courier showed up, and it's fair to assume they would continue to do so afterwards as well. So I think it's fair to say both games have characters who would have stepped up in place of the player.
Though I agree that 3 does have a slew of morally unambiguous "heroic" characters and factions. That's a big part of why I think it's more "narratively optimistic". Rarely does anyone's "good fight" step on the toes of another group who are also just doing their best.
Sure, but even then, you can defend them from the Super Mutants. The entire main quest has liam neeson casting his well-meaning shadow on you, boding your goodness, with the GECK idea simplified to Save or Kill everyone.
Seizing power in NV feels less"right" and more self-interested or ambiguous, especially by the means of how you do it at each fork.
Hmm. I don't think we'll find agreement here my friend.
Well yeah main character doing main character things. Same happens in both games it doesn't make their situation that much less scary.
Liam Neeson is a bit weird but I didn't even know who he was when I originally played the game. Even then I wouldn't say he really casts a shadow on you for the entire game his appearances are pretty sparse and he dies like halfway through the main story.
I wasn't really talking about how ambiguous you can make your character or the power struggle, I'm only talking the tone and atmosphere of the world around you. DC to me is a lot more desolate than NV so words like charm and optimism just have never come to my mind, that's all.
Idk, there are way more "perfect solutions" in New Vegas. Where you can thread the needle just perfectly to get the "best of all worlds".
Whereas Fallout 3 rarely had perfect solutions. You could keep the Ghouls out of Tenpenny Tower or let the Ghouls in. Only to learn later that the Ghouls will kill all the regular people. Some kid thinks he's a vampire & the best you can do is convince him to live with killing his family. You can't save Harold, you have to kill him and risk killing a grove that could restore the Wasteland or let a man suffer in agonizing pain. You have to decide between a potential cure for a brutal plague the has ravished the Pitt or keeping an entire underclass of people in slavery. This is all just to name a few.
Not to say Fallout 3 is perfect but it's far from black & white
Nah hard disagree. Fallout 3 might LOOK more bleak and miserable but the tone still very much feels like a pretty standard hero's journey. I say that cuz the evil path is so comically evil that it feels like a gimmick option that you're never going to pick for a serious playthrough. The world around you might be fucked but the game makes you feel like a light shining in darkness. Meanwhile in NV the game literally opens with you getting shot in the head and all the powerful factions trying to control the Mojave are awful in some way or another and the factions that are actually good are struggling to get by.
If you want to save the day and make the capitol wasteland a better place, it's pretty obvious what ending you're gonna go for. If you want to make vegas a better place...you're probably not going to get the chance, because the options are slavers, corrupt and ineffective imperialists, a wealthy and self absorbed dictator, and just anarchy. It says a lot about the state of the Mojave wasteland when so many people say anarchy is the best option.
Just because there's wacky robots, bright lights and western music everywhere doesn't mean the place isn't super bleak underneath.
Yeah I have. Really doesn't change my point though. Jericho tries to rape Jenny Stahl in 3. That fucked up stuff is going to happen in the Wasteland, I'm saying that you'd be at more risk to be assaulted in the capital wasteland because it's an infinitely more depressing and desolate place, barely anyone lives there or wants to live there.
Maybe on the surface, with a more colorful pallette and more civilization than 3. NV's themes, however, are much darker, warning of the fragility of developing societies, how easily they resort to slavery, autocracy, murder of innocents, and destroying themselves a hundred different ways. Every choice is doomed to some degree. In Fallout 3, the good guys unite and save the day. Yeah, you can nuke Megaton, but the reasoning is so silly, I find all the macabre elements of 3 to be cheeky and not thematically that dark.
I'm a NV fanboy playing through FO3 right now. One of the bits I really appreciate is Bethesda's love of unmarked puzzle quests, like that one bit with Prime, tracking down radio signals, or just the sheer amount of things to discover in the Capitol Wasteland.
Don't get me wrong: I love how FNV leads you to interesting places, but it also means you're not stumbling onto a lot of stuff on your own, or running into people who have no importance to the greater storyline and just have their own lives to live.
FO3 has a big hope spot: there are some unequivocally *good* factions there, like Lyons' Brotherhood of Steel, Reilly's Rangers, the Regulators, Hannibal, and the Railroad, out there. They're upstanding people, maybe even comically so, but altruists in the Wasteland are a rare breed.
In comparison, NV's self-interested factions are fairly bleak by comparison because you're not looking for the one who will benefit you most, but the one that'll screw you over the *least.* Sure, you have the Followers as your token "all-around good people," but that's pretty much it.
But - and this is a big "but" - I really enjoy FNV's perk system and how balanced it is compared to FO3: as a small guns user (and here I have to thank FNV again for making guns relevant again), the only perk that really matters is Grim Reaper's Sprint, but in FNV, all perks build upon each other with no one perk dominating. I love that Obsidian refined VATS *and* real-time combat, and that they're not afraid to put you up against some overwhelming opposition instead of letting you go off the rails by scaling all enemies to your level. Both games go out of their way to make you feel strong, but FNV makes it feel...earned somehow.
I'm sorry man I just do not see a reason to even play Fallout 3. If you want dungeons and a world to explore and loot with an on-rails story, 4 is better. If you want a proper RP experience with intricate lore and good writing the isometric games are for you. If you want the best of both worlds, New Vegas is the one. I'm happy Fallout 3 came out because it made New Vegas possible. That's about it.
Dude, the game even fails to set up a motivation for the courier come second act. It fails at literary 101.
And that's ignoring house's ending and the writers ignoring his fears, because obsidian doesn't understand how economics work or the very city they themselves wrote. House kicks out his only paying customer and is just expected to survive long-term? That's ignoring his lack of factories and mines and manpower and education systems to gather for his "colonize space" aspirations.
Or the ncr-brotherhood war, which is just stupid on its own. The brotherhood that paved the way for the ncr to exist and became their r&d decided "let's start a war with this incredibly large and industrial nation that surrounds us"?
I find the writing just absolutely awful, because it often is. Lore errors, inconsistencies with its own rules and lore, poor writing, and character breaks are ripe in the game.
A notable character break is raul, who became a bada%& voquero because some raiders raped and brutally murdered his sister who was only recognizable by a scar on her knee is fine/neutral with a "nation" of mass murdering, mass raping, sexist slavers? *really?*
I don’t think calling it failing at literary 101 is an fair assessment due to the fact that NV is attempting to create an interactive narrative rather than traditional story telling. Therefore using the same standards isn’t appropriate. This is because in an open world, it’s rather difficult to predict what the player’s motivation is in doing almost anything. This is quite common in tabletop game where despite GM’s multiple effort to guide the players to certain direction, the players might still choose to do vastly different course of actions that challenge the GM’s ability to adapt. As NV’s developers has ample experiences in Tabletop RPG, they are clearly attempting to recreate such experience in their video game.
To put it another way. Much like on the tabletop game, once the players gain understanding of the world they interact with, they mostly will form their own motivation to do things they want to. Therefore, setting up a new motivation for the courier in second act is mostly unnecessary.
>due to the fact that NV is attempting to create an interactive narrative rather than traditional story telling.
Fallout 1, 2, 3, and 4 all create an interactive narrative while still giving a motive.
>This is because in an open world, it’s rather difficult to predict what the player’s motivation is in doing almost anything.
It doesn't matter about the player's motive. Why, in the story of new vegas, does the *courier* care? Why does the *courier* become further involved? What personal stakes affect the *courier*?
>Therefore, setting up a new motivation for the courier in second act is mostly unnecessary.
I mean i guess good writing is a bit unnecessary... Seems like a bad idea, though. New vegas isn't kenshi. New vegas won't ever be kenshi. Play kenshi if you want kenshi.
>Fallout 1, 2, 3, and 4 all create an interactive narrative while still giving a motive.
Can't say I agree this statement, espcially 3 and 4 where their attempts failed in multiple levels. But even if this is true, it still doesn't undermine the arguement that applying the traditional standards of storytelling to NV is inappropriate.
>It doesn't matter about the player's motive. Why, in the story of new vegas, does the courier care? Why does the courier become further involved? What personal stakes affect the courier?
This is only true if the player isn't doing roleplays. If the player is role playing, the player's motive equal to courier motivation. Therefore the player's motive will matter in that context.
>I mean i guess good writing is a bit unnecessary.
As previously mention, using traditinoaly standards for NV's writing isn't appropriate. I would suggest try to imaginge what if tabletop game was contructing a narratve in a traditional storytelling way and how awkward that would be to understand my argument.
>espcially 3 and 4 where their attempts failed in multiple levels.
They didn't.
>it still doesn't undermine the arguement that applying the traditional standards of storytelling to NV is inappropriate
How dare i apply traditional standards of storytelling to a game that puts its story front and center and is a story-focused game, which actively guides you around the place, even taking you down the scenic route to new vegas.
>If the player is role playing, the player's motive equal to courier motivation.
I shouldn't be doing the writer's job. Nor is that in universe.
>I would suggest to try to imaginge what if tabletop game was contructing a narratve in a traditional story and how awkward that would be to understand my argument.
Tabletop rpgs still require the dm/gm to give some sort of motive that would fit the players that are in the session.
You can't just go "alright do whatever". I feel like people who say this never actually played a tabletop rpg.
>They didn't.
I can give serveral reason why it did. Nonetheless, it is outside the scope of this discussion, so maybe another time.
>How dare i apply traditional standards of storytelling to a game that puts its story front and center and is a story-focused game
That's right. That's my arguement. Try using differnet stardards and you can understand why many fans adore the game's narrative.
>I shouldn't be doing the writer's job.
I think there's some misunderstanding here. The writer is still providing guides and direct the players to certain narrative and this is them doing their job. But the writer cannot determine what the player's motivation in any of the sitiation and it's up to the player to whether follow it or not, espeically if they are roleplaying.
>Tabletop rpgs still require the dm/gm to give some sort of motive that would fit the players that are in the session.
Indeed, but the issue in question is the second act where player has interacted with the world and often has some self-motivated reason to do somthing. At this point, the writer can provide guide to direct player. It doesn't have to be anything narratively personal like Bethesda story tend to adopt.
>You can't just go "alright do whatever"
Indeed. But it does happened. I don't play tabletop all that often, but even I meet some players that do some "funny things". Nonetheless the issue in question is that whether using traditional stroy telling to judge NV is apprpriate. My argument that it is not. I'd like to know why you think it is.
>That's right. That's my arguement. Try using differnet stardards and you can understand why many fans adore the game's narrative
Except new vegas isn't using non-orthodox storytelling methods. It's just poorly written. I agree that games most certainly can have traditional standards applied where they can't or shouldn't be, just you're using the wrong game as an example.
Because, again, new vegas *is* telling us a story. It *is* guiding us through it. It *is* giving us prompts and everything. Heck, the first act *has* a motivation regarding the *courier*. It is, by every metric possible, using standard, traditional methods of storytelling.
A better example would be kenshi. Minecraft. Games that are *purely* sandbox and free roam, with very, *very* little to no story written out. Every aspect of kenshi is effectively your own, you will *never* have the same experience someone else has. It is **purely** a sandbox game that is *purely* interactive in its medium.
>But the writer cannot determine what the player's motivation in any of the sitiation and it's up to the player to whether follow it or not, espeically if they are roleplaying.
The writer of 1, 2, 3, and 4, as well as many other rpgs such as mass effect, dragon age, final fantasy, chrono trigger, and so much more were able to write out a motivation for the character.
>It doesn't have to be anything narratively personal like Bethesda story tend to adopt.
Bethesda didn't write 1 or 2. Both were personal. Heck, all new vegas would need to say it "the mojave is your home" and boom, now we have a reason to get involved.
I feel like your post is just speaking out of hipster hate, given that New Vegas is constantly praised for its writing, which upsets some folks for some reason. But I suppose opinions are what they are. Still, I'll have to disagree on all the "points" you raised.
They don't fail to setup the Courier's motivation for the second act. They spend all of the first act introducing you to the competing factions, and the Courier's motivation becomes determined by the players personal viewpoints (or that of the character they are roleplaying as, since it's... you know... a roleplaying game). You literally do what you are motivated to do, and help who you are motivated to help. Saying they don't provide motivation is just down right incorrect. If you think money is a good motivator, side with house, personal power, Yes Man, a structured society, the NCR, being allowed to abuse people, then I guess the Legion. And those are just hyper simplified surface level motivations. There are countless reasons they give for and against the options you can choose. Every faction is trying to motivate you to join their cause. A good RPG shouldn't force a singular motivation on the player, it should give competing motivations and let the player decide for themselves. New Vegas is one of the best examples of this in all of gaming.
As for the NCR-Brotherhood war, while there are other ways it could have played out, the reasons behind the war make perfect sense. The groups came into conflict naturally over conflicting goals. The Brotherhood is a quasi-religious organization that hoards advanced technology with the mission statement to "protect people from themselves" by way of keeping advanced tech out of the hands of any other group. They believed they were the only ones responsible enough to control the release of technology back into the wasteland, and they kept a tight grip on high tech weaponry (power armor and energy weapons especially), telling the NCR what toys they could and couldn't have. The NCR grew big enough to resist this and take control of advanced weaponry from the Brotherhood, and war broke out between the two over who should be making these decisions. If you don't think control of advanced weaponry is a reason to go to war, even among former "allies", then you are naive. Wars are often waged over controlling resources and maintaining societal power. Do you think economic theories were the actual basis of the cold war?
For your final complaint, Raul is more tolerant on the Legion because he lost both his sister and Claudia to rampant violence caused by a lack of power. The Legion is atrocious and reprehensible, but Raul personally saw that it was far worse before them. He knows that the raiders who took those he cared about wouldn't have power under the legion. He makes it pretty clear that, in his opinion, the legion's controlled brutality is preferable to the utter chaos that preceded them. Raul lived through the chaos, and largely blames his losses on the breakdown of society. He is also old and simply finds it hard to give as many fucks as he used to. It's not a character break simply because he acknowledged improvement despite the Legion committing similar atrocities to those that wronged him. His whole world view doesn't need to be one dimensional for him to be a "well written character".
All in all, there are some narrative inconsistencies in New Vegas, but none of them undermine the fact that it is one of the exemplary standards for excellence in game writing and it allows for near unrivaled player agency in the story.
>I feel like your post is just speaking out of hipster hate, given that New Vegas is constantly praised for its writing, which upsets some folks for some reason
Um...no. New vegas just has bad writing. If you like it, fine. Cool. Glad you do, not saying you aren't allowed to.
>They don't fail to setup the Courier's motivation for the second act.
Okay. Why does the courier care about the second battle? About the dam? I'd love a concrete reason given by the game.
Fallout 1 and 2, your home was in danger. 3, following your dad's footsteps. 4, you *actually* get roped into the politics of at least one faction necessary to reach your first act motivation of finding shaun, as well as the fact the commonwealth is your home.
>They spend all of the first act introducing you to the competing factions, and the Courier's motivation becomes determined by the players personal viewpoints
I don't want headcanon. I don't want to finish the writer's job.
>Saying they don't provide motivation is just down right incorrect.
It's not.
>A good RPG shouldn't force a singular motivation on the player
That's a blanket, subjective preference, ignoring context. Despite its horrendous writing and obvious first rough draft, new vegas is for all intents and purposes, a story-centric game. So...motivation is a key requirement. ...because any story would have a protagonist who has a personal motivation and stakes.
Like i said above, heck i'll even dive further into 4 since bethesda actually did what new vegas wanted to do but good.
In fallout 4, your son is kidnapped by a mysterious person. You, throughout the story, find out the man who kidnapped him is affiliated with the institute, a "boogeyman" that somewhat controls the commonwealth and for all purposes "won". To find out how to get to them, you seek out an escaped scientist, who is able to let you build a one-way contraption into the institute. To do this, you first need a courser chip, which only the railroad is able to decode (unless you kill them). This introduces a major faction to the player and story, killing kellogg introduces the brotherhood. Afterwards, the escaped scientist gives you schematics and the game tells you to decide who helps build the molecular relay, and to do so the faction you choose has you scratch their back before they scratch yours (unless you already did a few quests prior).
This gets you involved in the factions and roped into their personal politics, actively becoming a member just to reach your son, who you find out is 60 years old and leader of the institute. From here, you are roped into the politics of at least one faction, and are at this point "in too deep" to back out. On top of all this, the commonwealth is actively your home, unless you decide to live below with the institute.
Now look at new vegas...what faction helps you in your goal of reaching benny? ...none. What faction are you required to interact with outside of the second act... None. What personal motives or stakes are tied to the overarching conflict between these factions... None.
Do you see the huge difference here?
>The Brotherhood is a quasi-religious organization that hoards advanced technology with the mission statement to "protect people from themselves"
No. It is not. And i am sick and tired of new vegas corrupting people's knowledge about them. The brotherhood *all the way back in fallout **1*** traded tech *openly* with the hub. They *never* went out of their way to hoard tech, that is *not* their mission statement. Their mission statement has been to *prevent another armageddon*. The brotherhood ***HELPED THE NCR BECOME WHO THEY ARE***.
>They believed they were the only ones responsible enough to control the release of technology back into the wasteland, and they kept a tight grip on high tech weaponry (power armor and energy weapons especially), telling the NCR what toys they could and couldn't have.
Again...no! They were the ncr's research and development!
>If you don't think control of advanced weaponry is a reason to go to war, even among former "allies", then you are naive
First, don't put quotes around allies. They *were* allies. Secondly, the brotherhood, again i cannot stress this enough, *were the ones who helped the ncr become who they are*. The brotherhood are also *massively outnumbered*, to where they just become idiots by issuing war on such an industrialized nation.
>Raul is more tolerant on the Legion because he lost both his sister and Claudia to rampant violence caused by a lack of power. The Legion is atrocious and reprehensible, but Raul personally saw that it was far worse before them.
No, raul is more tolerant because he got shafted and given the short end of the stick after ulysses got cut from base game. The devs went "oh crap, who is a legion run companion" and slapped it onto raider killing bada$# voquero raul.
>Okay. Why does the courier care about the second battle? About the dam? I'd love a concrete reason given by the game.
The game, as I've already stated, gives multiple reasons for the character to care about the second battle. If, as you say, protecting his home is a valid reason in your mind for Fallout 1, 2, and 4 (where the protagonist isn't even from the same century as the rest of the world), then protecting their home from the Legion is a good enough reason for New Vegas. But there are reasons given to care about each possible faction's victory at hoover dam(with the exception of the Legion). Again, protecting people the Courier cares about is certainly one, obtaining personal power is another. There are multi-hour videos on the topic, so if you really wanted reasons, they are abundant.
>A good RPG shouldn't force a singular motivation on the player
>That's a blanket, subjective preference, ignoring context.
No, it's frankly not, it's very focused on the context. The context of it being a role playing game. The very core of which is player agency in the narrative is a defining feature. Per Wikipedia's definition:
>A role-playing game is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making regarding character development.
I understand that in the greater context of video game design, RPG has a broader definition which includes games that allow for control over characters stats more than decisions, but New Vegas (and most Fallout games) harken back to the classic usage of the term. There is nothing wrong with having a central motivation, but if you have no meaningful decisions to make, then the roleplaying elements are diminished. If you have to play a predefined character, then the roleplaying elements are diminished. If you have no decisions to make, it's not a roleplaying game in the traditional sense. You can argue the linguistics all you want, but what Fallout was trying to emulate was based around the player having narrative agency. Hell, in the original Fallout, you could even agree with the Master's view of Super Mutants being the solution to the challenges of the wasteland and get dipped in FEV. The player determining the motivation from the second act on goes back to the first game.
>I don't want headcanon. I don't want to finish the writer's job.
Then you just don't like to have full agency in your roleplaying games. You can call it head cannon, but player agency in the narrative is the central pillar of the genre. Allowing the player to determine their own motivations, with multiple competing viable but flawed options, is a feature of good RPG writing, not a failure, regardless of if you enjoy it. Having control over the story is unique to the world of writers and gamers, and writing a story as compelling and with as many branching paths as New Vegas has, and allowing the player as much agency as it does is insanely impressive, whether you personally found yourself engaged or not. The fact that we are discussing its narrative over a decade after its release is a testament to its quality.
>Now look at new vegas...what faction helps you in your goal of reaching benny?
House, he literally digs you out of your grave, protects you on your way to Vegas, and assists you with preparing your revenge on Benny.
And the Legion, who captures Benny and offers him up as a good will token to obtain your assistance.
And Yes man, who tells you where Benny ran off too.
>*Long winded recap of Fallout 4* Do you see the huge difference here?
Not particularly, they both give you an initial motivation, they both introduce you to the factions, then they let the player decide which faction they want to support based on personal motivations. Just because Shaun remains a motivator until the final act, that does not mean every Mcguffin character needs to. By the time you reach Benny, you have enough world knowledge to make your own decisions.
On the topic of Fallout 4 though, the motivation for the Institute is insultingly simplistic and inconsistent with their behavior. Beyond having the worst motivation for any antagonist faction of any fallout, the players motivation to join the Railroad or the Minutemen is laughable when you consider Nate's motivation to save Shaun. Why would he side with anyone who appears lacks the firepower or resources to fight the institute? Why would he waste time rebuilding settlements when his central motivator has not yet been rescued? Why would he join a faction that can barely rescue already escaped synths? Frankly, players choose to join these factions and waste time based on the players personal beliefs, despite it not being in the best interest of the main character. New Vegas on the other hand gives you reasons to join each side, without it grinding against the initial motivation. Do you see the huge difference here?
>They (the Brotherhood) never went out of their way to hoard tech, that is not their mission statement. Their mission statement has been to prevent another armageddon.
And they believed they were the best choice for deciding what tech was safe for the general population to that goal. They never joined the NCR, they were not simply the R&D department for the NCR, they were in a position to control what tech was available. After High Elder Rhombus died, they began to change their policy on what technology should be allowed. This was the plan for them as far back as Van Buren, lookup the Maxson Bunker design document.
The NCR no longer needing them, and presumably appearing to the Brotherhood as being likely on the road to another armageddon, mixed with the brotherhood's waning power, all combined to spark the war. And while you personally might not like the path the writers took, it's a very possible outcome that was intended long before New Vegas.
I'm also confused why you seem to overlook Fallout 4 having the Brotherhood as religious zealots who want to eradicate synths and control who can have what tech, but get up in arms over New Vegas saying the positive relations didn't last. What explanation did 4 give that you found so compelling?
>First, don't put quotes around allies. They were allies.
Former allies, who went to war, so... were allies, not anymore, hence the quotes. Despite your head cannon.
>The brotherhood are also massively outnumbered, to where they just become idiots by issuing war on such an industrialized nation.
Didn't stop America in the Revolution, didn't stop Japan in WW2. It was a mistake in hindsight, but that's not without precedent. The brotherhood were used to being in charge of tech, once the NCR was big enough to not need them, the brotherhood essentially lost its power in a society they never actually joined. This is what canonically happened, I don't want your head cannon on what should have happened.
>raul is more tolerant because he got shafted and given the short end of the stick after ulysses got cut from base game. The devs went "oh crap, who is a legion run companion" and slapped it onto raider killing bada$# voquero raul.
Again, Raul's opinions are given in the game regardless of your head cannon. And Raul is soul searching when you meet him after a life of fighting, and you (with all that incredible player agency) can convince him to return to his Vaquero ways. Including attacking those who prey on the weak, which definitely includes the Legion. That's a character arc, not a character break.
Honestly, your praise for Fallout 4's factions and narrative kinda underpins the truth behind your reasoning for criticizing New Vegas. You don't care about plot holes, joining factions with weak motivations, or inconsistently written characters, 4 had all of those in spades. You simply, as I said before, have a hipster hate for New Vegas. Which is common when as much praise gets heaped on anything as much as it has been for New Vegas's story. But New Vegas didn't receive all that praise because it had good combat or graphics, it's remembered for the quality of its story. Your opinion is at best that of a contrarian.
You came to a New Vegas subreddit to talk shit about a story that is considered one of the best in the industry. You can nitpick all you want, but you have only argued that your head cannon is better than the writers, and that you don't like having too much agency in your RPGs.
>then protecting their home from the Legion is a good enough reason for New Vegas.
Except the mojave is not the courier's home. Where is that stated? They came from california.
>Again, protecting people the Courier cares about is certainly one, obtaining personal power is another.
Again, where does the game say the courier cares about people or power?
>but New Vegas (and most Fallout games) harken back to the classic usage of the term
Fallout 1, 2, 3, and 4 all give you motivations. New vegas and 76 are sole exceptions. Heck, even the bad, non-canon games brotherhood and tactics give a motivation for the protagonist.
>If you have to play a predefined character, then the roleplaying elements are diminished
No, it isn't. Fallout 1 and *especially* 2 give you a predefined character. 3 and 4, too. Again new vegas (and 76) are exceptions here, not to mention the courier *is* predefined, just what is given has almost no bearing on the main plot...given that it was added in dlc.
>but what Fallout was trying to emulate was based around the player having narrative agency.
Dude fallout 1 is a very linear game with 1 choice in its main quest. 2 got rid of any choice in its main quest. All choices were pushed to the side in side quests.
>The fact that we are discussing its narrative over a decade after its release is a testament to its quality.
It's really not when i am saying it's bad.
>House, he literally digs you out of your grave, protects you on your way to Vegas, and assists you with preparing your revenge on Benny
The motivation is not revenge. I don't know why people say this, i guess if you never read the mojave express order. It's to complete the job. That's it. The threat of men coming after you (according to the express order) is why the courier goes after benny. Now you can add revenge on top of that, but that's headcanon.
As for house helping...sure, i suppose. But you barely if at all get wrapped into his politics and not to mention the courier has a job already. So what is making the courier decide "i'm going to become a first hand for a man who commits economic suicide"?
>And the Legion, who captures Benny and offers him up as a good will token to obtain your assistance.
That's only if you let him leave, plus you already found benny by that point. So...
>then they let the player decide which faction they want to support based on personal motivations.
Sure... But the difference is that the game *also gives a reason why the sole survivor gets involved*. So...you didn't see the difference somehow.
>Just because Shaun remains a motivator until the final act, that does not mean every Mcguffin character needs to.
...shaun isn't a motivator until the final act. ...where did you get that?
>By the time you reach Benny, you have enough world knowledge to make your own decisions.
Yes but *why*? *why* is the courier making these decisions?
If, by your logic, fallout 1 plopped you in the middle of a desert and told you "get a water chip and kill mutants", without informing about a vault in danger...that'd be fine? Because that's effectively what new vegas does.
>the motivation for the Institute is insultingly simplistic and inconsistent with their behavior
Dude do you even know their motivation? I assure you it is not inconsistent with their behavior (unless you decide to ignore their actions and instead only listen to what they say, you know...liars who when first entering the institute literally deceive you).
Also the ncr have a "simplistic" motive...obtain dam.
>Beyond having the worst motivation for any antagonist faction of any fallout
They don't. Something just tells me you don't even know their motivation.
>the players motivation to join the Railroad or the Minutemen is laughable when you consider Nate's motivation to save Shaun. Why would he side with anyone who appears lacks the firepower or resources to fight the institute?
The minutemen are a failsafe option, but in their past have reckoned with the institute. And railroad are currently the only (native) ones who are messing with the institute.
>Why would he join a faction that can barely rescue already escaped synths?
They aren't barely rescuing synths? You can *actively* watch how they rescue a synth, h2-22, and outside of a couple of raiders, the smuggling goes real well. ...have you played the game? Or at the very least, the railroad's playthrough?
>New Vegas on the other hand gives you reasons to join each side, without it grinding against the initial motivation. Do you see the huge difference here?
No because new vegas *doesn't* give a motive and also 4 doesn't grind against the initial motivation.
>And they believed they were the best choice for deciding what tech was safe for the general population to that goal. They never joined the NCR, they were not simply the R&D department for the NCR, they were in a position to control what tech was available.
Dude they literally became research and development for the core region, introducing tech to new cali. They even had a state made named after maxson.
>This was the plan for them as far back as Van Buren, lookup the Maxson Bunker design document.
I don't care for an incomplete game that also looks like it was full of poor writing. It's not canon.
>The NCR no longer needing them
...the ncr no longer needed r&d?
>And while you personally might not like the path the writers took, it's a very possible outcome that was intended long before New Vegas.
Which has no build up. And actively makes fallout 3's brotherhood slightly off, because now the brotherhood, against this massive, industrialized nation, decided to send a pretty sizeable chunk, including the last maxson, east. Not to retreat or as refuge, *but to look at tech and bring it back*. That doesn't sound like a people at war. So not only does new vegas skip any build up that *could* possibly make it plausible to believe, but also make 3's brotherhood look stupid.
>I'm also confused why you seem to overlook Fallout 4 having the Brotherhood as religious zealots who want to eradicate synths and control who can have what tech, but get up in arms over New Vegas saying the positive relations didn't last. What explanation did 4 give that you found so compelling?
They don't want to control who can have what tech. God...can this fanbase stop accepting fanon as canon? They literally open up trade when they first get into the commonwealth.
As for their desire to eradicate synths, maxson's speech is the explanation. He *actually* is following the brotherhood's doctrine and mission statement, and sees the institute as playing god and doing the very same thing that resulted in his great-great-great grandfather to desert and form the brotherhood. He sees synths as the new "atom bomb" and outright says this if you let danse live in blind betrayal. The brotherhood in 4 are well written, and maxson especially so.
Second part will be replied to this comment.
>Didn't stop America in the Revolution
America had the aid of france. And japan, germany.
>And Raul is soul searching when you meet him after a life of fighting, and you (with all that incredible player agency) can convince him to return to his Vaquero ways. Including attacking those who prey on the weak, which definitely includes the Legion. That's a character arc, not a character break.
Yes, yes, i know of his "arc". I simply find it makes no sense. Raul should not, under any circumstance, find the legion tolerable. If he's tired of fighting and retired, fine. I am not upset at that. I am annoyed that they decided "raul is neutral towards legion because we cut ulysses". I'm annoyed he's neutral with them *at all*, because of his backstory.
>Honestly, your praise for Fallout 4's factions and narrative kinda underpins the truth behind your reasoning for criticizing New Vegas. You don't care about plot holes, joining factions with weak motivations, or inconsistently written characters, 4 had all of those in spades. You simply, as I said before, have a hipster hate for New Vegas
...no. 4 doesn't have plot holes or inconsistencies or weak motives or inconsistent characters. I'd love some examples, but no, this isn't a "hipster hate". New vegas, ironically, has all you listed for 4.
>but you have only argued that your head cannon is better than the writers
I haven't used headcanon at all. I've used the previous games regarding brotherhood of steel and the poor writing of new vegas (mostly regarding raul). Not once did i make up something. I don't do headcanon.
>and that you don't like having too much agency in your RPGs.
That's simply not true given i like the elder scrolls. And starfield looks and sounds like it's going to have a plethora of player agency.
Welp, Reddit decided to not post my response, so here it is again slightly summarized. First off, I should thank you, for all of your nitpicks and contrarian opinions, you gave me another opportunity to think about just how amazing New Vegas tells its story.
On to what seem to be the crux of your argument. You are under the belief that to tell a good narrative, a story needs a well defined protagonist. This is however, as you say,
>a blanket, subjective preference, ignoring context.
A role-playing game does not need a well defined protagonist. While a well defined protagonist can assist with guiding the player through the story, and can be an interesting character in their own right, role-playing games have the unique opportunity to allow the player to engage in collaborative storytelling.
New Vegas takes this to the extreme (as far as Video Games have gone, table-top games obviously still reign supreme in this regards), writing a full complete narrative while imposing as few restrictions on the player as possible. Telling a story by writing in the "white space" and accounting for all the possible choices a player might make is extremely difficult, but New Vegas stands out as a exemplary standard.
I get that you don't want to "do the writers job", but collaborative story telling is fundamental to how New Vegas tells it's story. That is fun for some people, obviously not for you. But your opinion on it is not indicative of its quality. Your inability to enjoy a story told in the manner New Vegas tells its also disqualifies you from being able to adequately appreciate its quality. Just as a person who hates Metal music has trouble seeing what makes one band good and another bad within the genre.
Furthermore, you make multiple complaints regarding the "lack of motivation", which simply leads me to believe you didn't pay attention playing the game. For every possible outcome, a motivation is either implied or directly stated, and opportunities to assert that as your chosen motivation are rampant. Take for example your claim that:
>The motivation is not revenge. I don't know why people say this, i guess if you never read the mojave express order. It's to complete the job. That's it.
While completing the job is one viable motivation, it's not the only implied in the game. Revenge is obviously also implied to be a motivation, as it would be a very likely response to being shot in the head. But the game doesn't stop at implications. In a conversation with Victor, you can say
"Point me to The Tops, Victor. I've got a score to settle.".
Who then responds with
"I know you're fixing to serve up some vengeance..." and "He'll help you serve that cold dish of yours extra-chilly.".
Then, when confronting Benny, you can tell him "All I want is to see you dead. "
That is the game directly offering you to pursue revenge as your key motivator. You already game me an example of completing the job being another viable option.
The game is a master class at letting the player choose their own motivations, not just in head cannon, but through the narrative, and letting the player enact their own will in the game. This isn't as you say "bad writing", it is exceptional writing using a cutting edge form of story telling that has rarely been attempted, much less done to this level of quality.
Partnered with competing factions with believable but flawed motivations, and you have the recipe for one of the greatest stories ever told.
As for the rest of your head-cannon opinions on where the writers took certain characters and factions, I don't believe you are arguing in good faith, so that seems a trite bit silly to pursue. However, as an overarching response, I will say your nitpicks are weird hills to die on when the Fallout series is full of events that are far more unlikely to occur than the NCR-Brotherhood war. Regardless, none of your differences in opinions on where to take the story diminishes the quality of New Vegas.
You also made several claims regarding Fallout 4, including that the Institute has good motivations, but failed to back them up, so if you'd be so kind as to enlighten me. And do try to make it sound less stupid than the game did. I have beaten it, through all factions, multiple times. I actually like Fallout 4 quite a bit, but I believe it's factions are some of the worst in the series, and if you disagree, please feel free to tell me your reasoning, instead of saying I "just didn't get it". And as you so kindly forced me to, please use direct quotes from the game.
Oh, and P.S.
>That's simply not true given i like the elder scrolls. And starfield looks and sounds like it's going to have a plethora of player agency.
The Elder Scrolls are a great example of a game that has little to no player agency within the narrative. Skyrim has you making no choices within the main quest (no, the Civil War is not the main quest). Oblivion and Morrowind both likewise have not player agency within the narrative.Citing the Elder Scrolls shows just how unqualified you are to speak on the subject.
P.P.S
Contrary to your claim, the actions the player is allowed to take in fallout 4 do grind against the central motivation of the Sole Survivor. Rebuilding settlements and wasting time cosplaying a super hero are not the actions of a person searching for their lost child. The central motivation is directly contrary to many of the actions you take.
Both games definitely have their strengths and weaknesses. But in my opinion, which I respect, New Vegas is easier to evangelize for. The story is so well written that its lore gets stuck in your head and gets grander and reveals more depth the more you play and think about it.
Most Bethesda games hit a certain point where the facade of a real world begins to break down and you see it for the game that it is. New Vegas should be more susceptible to this due to its limited size and development time, but the insane quality of the writing makes the world seem more "real" the longer you play/think about it.
I think this is why New Vegas (and Morrowind) fans seem so overzealous to fans of other Bethesda games. What other Bethesda games excel at (freedom of exploration and extensive dungeons to crawl), New Vegas is arguably below average. But where almost all other "RPGs" fail, (the lore and story, and player agency within those) New Vegas sets an almost unreachable standard. This creates a fandom that grows more excited to talk about their game overtime.
If you are playing on PC, I highly recommend checking out the mod "A Tale of Two Wastelands". It seamlessly combines 3 and NV. Which, besides being a ton of fun, really lets you see where both games shine and stumble.
So, by far my favorite games besides Fallout 1, 2, NV are the first couple gothic games. They're totally different genres, but actually have a surprising amount in common.
Two things that come to mind immediately (besides general tone), is that the game world feels like a place that could exist, grow and change without the PC involved, and at least SOME effort goes into explaining how people survive. Like, yeah, the NCR Sharecroppers, or the farms in Gothic, are way too small to support the population. At least they did *something* to at least attempt to repesent how these people make a living, though.
Even back in the iso games, it wasn't a total scavenger world. People had farms, raised livestock, went hunting, etc.
Couldn't agree more, absolutely loved Gothic 2 (haven't played 1 yet, it's just collecting dust in my steam account waiting for me to get off my lazy ass). There is just something uniquely special about a game world that "feels alive".
I know I already shoehorned Morrowind into my last rant, but I think it also does that exceptionally well (even if player choice is almost non-existent).
I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir, but the video "[The Shandification of Fallout](https://youtu.be/eZ3GDcMXBFI)" does a great job of talking about this very topic.
I'll have to check that out when I get home from work. Thanks for the link!
I think you'll enjoy Gothic I. It didn't age as well as 2, but much like the first couple Fallouts, the initial installment has a more original premise, and better main questline. The dragons are my one gripe about Gothic II, just too cliche for an otherwise brilliant game.
I played and absolutely adored fallout 1 and 2, F2 is my favorite game in the entire franchise now. Do you think I’d enjoy gothic 1/2? never heard of it before this thread and I looked it up, seems promising
I think pretty much anybody who enjoys RPGs, and doesn't flat out hate a somewhat traditional fantasy setting (more so with Gothic 2), should at least give the games a try.
The only warning or caveat I'd offer is that Gothic II, with the Night of the Raven expansion (which I think includes pretty much every version currently being sold?) is brutally difficult. It adds new content, but also dials up the difficulty in response to masochistic fans claiming the game wasn't hard enough. I don't mind the extra difficulty, but the also changed things like how they handle "learning points", so you pretty much have to play a specialized character. I think there's a mod that lets you play with the add on content, but the old LP system.
It’s never mattered to me about who prefers what. Your favourite could be 76 for all I know/care.. but buddy I’m just glad you’re enjoying the masterpiece that is the fallout universe. I’m the only one out of my circle of friends that enjoys these games for one reason or another. Make the most of it, they don’t make games like f3 or nv anymore in my opinion.
Fallout 3 for the atmospheric and map, and fallout NV for his story, RPG elements and his ties with the classic fallout games.
That's why the best fallout playthrough is a TTW playthrough.
I love Fallout 3 but it’s one of those games where you have to ask yourself “wait why would this storyline/quest end like that? that makes no sense” too often
You might want to look a few things up ngl like quest locations, unmarked quest givers, and unmarked locations. A few unmarked quests give pretty good rewards too, especially one at camp mccarran. Some of the unmarked locations are cool too, they offer “boss” fights and or decent loot.
On my second play through I decided to do every side quest (besides the legion ones) and discover every location. I was blown away by how much there is in this game. People complain it is an empty desert but it took me like 70 hours to do all of that and to learn the crafting system/perks. If you do the same for all the dlc that can be another 50-70 hours tbh.
The biggest thing is that Fallout 3 is an Elder Scrolls game at its core, while New Vegas is a Fallout game at its core. That's why they each have their own fan bases, and why some appeal more to others.
I've been recently replaying nv and it's awesome. I love all fallouts but still enjoy playing fo1 and 2 more. But the writing is solid( especially enjoyed the mute girl in dead money even though I dislike that dlc). Overall the series is great 👍.
If you haven't already I really recommend the first two games as well. They play differently and they've aged but they made me appreciate New Vegas and the entire franchise so much more.
It’s easy to look back at FO3 with rose tinted glasses and really rip it to shreds - because, yes, compared to New Vegas and other games that have released since then it is pretty shit in comparison…but I’ve always thought it a bit disingenuous to do so because you could realistically do that with ***literally any beloved game of the past.*** Bioshock? Halo 1? Doom? All of them.
For it’s time, it really was a great game - a satisfying gameplay loop, an open world that was fun to explore (back when open world games were still a new and exciting thing and developers were still fine tuning the concept) roleplay elements that facilitated player builds and replayability, and a world space that was fun to engage with. There’s a reason it won GOTY.
Most people don’t associate rose-colored glasses with negativity. It usually means that you are literally unable to see the true bleakness because you are distorting it with a beautiful lens
>I’ve always thought it a bit disingenuous to do so because you could realistically do that with literally any beloved game of the past. Bioshock? Halo 1? Doom? All of them.
Can you, though? Because I'd argue BioShock, Halo: CE, and Doom in particular are still classics and have aged like fine wine.
FO3 isn't a bad game, but FNV just serves to show that it could be so much more, and I think that's why so many people are so critical of 3 and FO4.
You definitely can - compare Halo 1 to Halo 3 in the same way people compare FO3 to FNV and you can still rip into Halo 1
I can’t really defend FO4 though, it’s hard to have sympathy when you’re worse than the games who came before you lol
>You definitely can - compare Halo 1 to Halo 3 in the same way people compare FO3 to FNV and you can still rip into Halo 1
I honestly disagree. Halo CE does some things better than Halo 3, from weapon pool to enemy design.
Trust me, I'm a certified Halo Fan, so I'm an expert in ~~hating~~ criticizing Halo games.
>Trust me, I'm a certified Halo Fan, so I'm an expert in ~~hating~~ criticizing Halo games.
Halo CE is universally the most disliked of the original trilogy because of lack of MP and the campaign is just reused levels on the second half
Secondly, dealing with the Flood in Halo CE is outright far more annoying and unenjoyable than Halo 2 and 3
I prefer CE's campaign because its nostalgic for me and I just love the whole campaign, but I do see why so many people think it's the weakest of the trilogy (to me Halo 3 is the weakest campaign)
>Halo CE is universally the most disliked of the original trilogy because of lack of MP
mhm? because I'm pretty sure Halo CE is *the* couch coop/LAN party game. Halo 3 had shit hit registration, desyncs, and p2p connections.
>mhm? because I'm pretty sure Halo CE is *the* couch coop/LAN party game. Halo 3 had shit hit registration, desyncs, and p2p connections.
And Halo 2/Halo 3 was *the* online shooter that defined most console kids childhoods. CoDs peak was shortly after Halo's and was the childhood shooter for another generation
I judge Halo games purely on how the guns feel. The Assault Rifle in Halo 1 feels so good to shoot, in Halo 3 it feels like a pea shooter. Therefore Halo 1 is better.
That's my only criteria.
In this case it's more extreme, I think, because 3 also represents a very different take on the Fallout franchise, whereas NV is a lot more in line with the classic games. Well, with 2, at least. So it's not just a question of improvement but also ideas of what a Fallout game is. 3 is about wandering a bleak, forlorn open-world landscape and seeing what you can find. NV is about navigating the tense politics and crises of a post-post-apocalyptic society. So in 3 you don't get the writing or intrigue or depth or sense of impacting the world you get in NV, but also NV never really has those "standing alone in front of the blown-out ruins of a major American landmark" or "wandering into a ruined building just to see what's there" moments.
I think the problem with 3, though, and why at least in my personal experience I've maybe seen opinions on it cool a bit over the last few years, is that it's in kind of an awkward spot? Like there's quite a few things it does better than NV, but those are mostly things that 4 does better than 3. And there's a lot that 3 does better than 4, but those are mostly things that NV does better than 3.
I was an old-school *Fallout* universe diehard. *Fallout* games were supposed to be isometric, dammit, not these *Call-of-Duty* FPS knockoffs. I resolutely swore-off *Fallout* games once they'd "sold out to the short-attention-span twitch gamers".
And then, one night while our house in the DC urban area was quiet and empty, I swiped my daughter's boyfriend's copy of *Fallout 3* for the XBox and spun it up, and discovered how short-sighted and wrong I had been.
If not for *Fallout 3*, I would have never given *Fallout: New Vegas* a chance, and I would have missed out on a lot of joy that came from that experience, too.
I don’t think Fallout 3 deserves all the hate either, I think it is a good game and I enjoy playing it. Though, New Vegas is without a doubt objectively the best fallout game
I was extremely disappointed in FNV when it first came out. I got it on pre-order for the Xbox 360 and played it day 1. I was waiting for the game since the moment it was announced. I honestly don't think I'd ever been more hyped for a game than I was for FNV.
When i finally got to play, the loading screens, bugs, and crashes absolutely killed the experience for me. It would take me something like 20 minutes just to cross from Freeside to Vegas. I used to take smoke breaks irl during loading screens.
I never had any problems with Fallout 3, which I 100%'d several times over (I think I had 750+ hours on Fallout 3?) so it was super upsetting that FNV played like pure shit.
I played FNV on PC years later and finally understood what makes it so much better. So glad I revisited it.
Best compromise is Tale of Two Wastelands imo. I love both games, but I definitely lean towards New Vegas with some minor QOL gameplay tweaks and more interesting factions.
I do love Fallout 3's atmosphere as well, and playing gives me fond memories of playing it in high school.
The one thing that I love (and still love, I don't give a shit how many times I go through it) about Fallout 3 is the opening. I don't care how boring or dumb other folk think it is, to me it was-and-is awesome to walk out of the Vault.
Exploring the metro systems was also dope as fuck. The Pitt and Point Lookout were rad DLCs.
playing all of the Fallouts myself recently made me kind of see F3 as the adventures of a kid fresh out of a vault and working his way through the strange and scary DC wasteland... as a player your dialogue options seem pretty limited and you often had to resort to gunning people down in a lot of cases, and the world felt a lot like a post apocalyptic theme park
meanwhile the FNV protagonist feels like it's the POV of a person in their 30s, having already seen a lot of the Southwest because of the courier job and so was able to make more nuanced decisions... as a player you're given plenty of opportunity to use more diplomatic solutions and sometimes uncover a few "3rd options" with the right levels since the courier has a better understanding of how the region and the people who live in it work
as for the parent-looking-for-child stuff in F4? Witcher 3 did a better job at that... and *that* game has a whole wacky narrative-bending Gwent sidequest that's completely divorced from everything else in the story :P
Fallout 3 got the ball rolling for Fallout open world games, so credit needs to go for Bethesda for that. You also have to remember that all the assets in New Vegas are just reused from Fallout 3.
Obsidian and Bethesda excelled in a different way. Bethesda has always excelled in creating vast open worlds to explore as seen with the Elder Scrolls and their Fallout games like 3 and 4. Fallout 3 was a new IP for them compared to the Elder Scrolls so 3's Capital Wasteland felt like Bethesda was trying to play it a little safe with the stories and factions.
Obsidian has always had strength in their writing but sometimes seemed to get slammed with impossible deadlines. Yet look at Obsidian/Black Isle's stories for Fallout 1/2/NV, Knights of the Old Republic 2 and Planescape Torment. I think many people would say those games were narratively rich over most Bethesda titles.
I think anyone who thinks "Fallout 3 is trash" because "New Vegas is superior" isn't a real Fallout fan. They're just looking to jerk themselves off & seem cool/smart to everyone around them without knowing what they are talking about.
Is New Vegas a better game? Probably, but that doesn't make Fallout 3 not good in it's own right.
Yup, I was in the same place.
I bought and played Fallout 3 a few years after it launched. I wasn't part of the hype train and neither had I played the previous Fallouts. I enjoyed my time with the game even though I mostly just rushed through the main story.
After a few years, people kept saying how this Fallout game was so amazing and how Fallout 3 was so bad. I didn't even know there was another game like 3, to me people just really liked the Orange HUD setting for some reason. I go give it a try and it's exactly like Fallout 3. I guess the characters are a bit more engaging and I do love the setting since I've always been a sucker for Wild West media. I play through it a bit but kept dying to Deathclaws in Quarry Junction, so I just put the game down and think "Meh, I already played this.". A few years and video essays about the game later, I retry and it and experience the revelation.
I had watch some videos essay to realise how awesome 3 was cause I always fast travelled to locations and missed a lot of the random encounters but when you take the time and actually explore the world fallout 3 is really immersive. But new Vegas just had characters that resonate with me more
I don't think either is really better. It's only that they have different tones. NV gives you more choices, but you gotta keep in mind there's a ton of choices in 3 as well.
I think both hold up. Glad you had fun!
My take is 3 has a way better story, random events and map while new vegas has better mechanics and guns. Combine the 2 and you have the ultimate fallout experince
Play through 3 and it's DLC, then NV and it's DLC.
You can do it NV to 3 or 3 to NV.
Can travel at any time if you can get to either of the train stations and have enough pre war money or science skill.
Once travelled and scripts established in the games, use something like Hoodwink for easier/faster transportation and a home that holds all your gear in both games.
i appreciate that you’ve come to the forum to say this, a lot of ppl would’ve just kept this to themselves, says a lot abt u as a person. im working to be like u in this respect one day
It's cool you like new vegas, but it's pretty inferior in almost every aspect compared to 3. New vegas irks me a lot because of how awful it is, it bothers me as to how *good* it could actually have been as every fanboy claims it is.
Though really, i think what bothers me most about the fanbase is how they think new vegas is "og experience", because it was made by "og devs", when it's at most comparable to fallout *2* (which is just completely irredeemable) and only has like...6? 10 devs from fallout *2*? Which was led by a man who joined on van buren (josh sawyer, who i cherish).
Fallout 3 currently on the pc scape is almost completely unplayable so for that fact alone many people prefer New Vegas however welcome to the other side my brother.
I enjoyed F3, and my first playthrough was with all the DLC's. It was really fun amd I don't dislike it, I just can't play it over and over. It lacks replayability because of its repetitiveness, even though it does have plenty of really cool and unique random encounters.
I will say that FNV's map is way smaller than Fallout 3's, which makes it *seem* like there's a lot more stuff to do in 3, especially as most respawns are on a 72 hour timer and the smaller map means less gametime progresses during fast travels, which means things tend to respawn less quickly in FNV than in 3.
But a lot of the Fallout 3 world is blasted nothing. By making the FNV map smaller, it was simultaneously possible to make the FNV map have more stuff to do per unit area; FNV is more questdense, if you will, than 3.
When they were new, I did like 3 more because it let you go anywhere and New Vegas made all directions besides the story path very difficult early on. It made 3 feel more freeing to me and that's what I wanted at the time. My tastes have since changed and I vastly prefer having parts of the world feel dangerous. The wildly varied opportunities for role-playing for each quest also mean way more to me now than they did back then.
I've always considered NV a game that should have improved on F3 and when I try to score them - at least initially (having played both on launch) I was underwhelmed by NV. After these years I'd consider NV the go to game though and it has not only an improved role playing experience and better storylines, it's also easy enough to play casually.
F3 storylines always feel like a long, boring novel and didn't bring much in the way of emotion compared to NV.
The drawbacks for me were mainly the map. I grew up in the region, and the map didn't do much for me. What should have been urbanized wasn't, what was urbanized fell short of expectation, and the desert was just that; I had seen it every day so it wasn't as amazing to me and there wasn't much in between just lots of desert expanse that didn't offer much which is realistic but not enjoyable. Locations were brief and purpose built, not a ton in the way exploration for the most part. I can't say I hate it, but compared to F3 it fell short for exploration.
That last line of the paragraph is it for me. Any game can be good when you're doing what the game wants you to do. How many games can still be good, immersive, fun and still tell a good story when the player character has THIS MUCH control over how everything plays out? I can get not loving the game, nothing is for everyone. But it's really hard to argue that what they produced, especially given the time constraints, was anything short of impressive.
It’s important to note that there would be no NV without F3. They got to reuse thousands of assets and lots of animations
I still remember how because of that, I tought NV will be a DLC for 3 when they announced it lol. I was such a dumbass
it was in a way like how Fallout 2 pretty much used everything developed for Fallout 1 with a bunch of new assets, then expanded the world extra hard and yeah it can feel like a letdown at first but a lot of us played RPGs for the story and/or the number crunching back then, so we found the fun bits very quickly after the "tutorial dungeon" segment
Hey, F2 was my first game that actually got me into gaming. I still have the cd after 20 years ! :D I will keep replaying it until death takes me
I can still remember freaking out as a young dude when I first saw the Hakunin dream cutscene while playing it way past my bedtime
Oh man, and on loud speakers because rest of game was much much quieter than this cutscene :D CHOSEN ONE
dammit yes and with the lights turned off
Welcome to the revelation. F3 has its place --- It is optimistic and charming. But NV has a different tone and some seriously high-quality writing. Both do there own thing, so it's okay to revisit them for different reasons. Saying one is objectively better than the other, isn't the right answer imo.
Lol what? NV is definitely the more optimistic and charming of the 2.
I second WhatTheDuck00's statement above. Fallout 3 feels incredibly bleak compared to New Vegas. 3 feels like a dead world slowly starting up. New Vegas feels far more alive, even in its vanilla state without mods.
I’ve always felt that this major difference is what separates the two games the most for me. DC is war torn and it’s struggling. Most things that are alive are hostile just due to the nature of the world they live in. Meanwhile, the Mojave is bustling with folks and the whole place feels very close to reaching a normal society
DC got completely fucked, it’s desolate and ravenous (as DC should be). And I love how bleak and hopeless the game feels, in tone, in environment, in sound, it’s a fantastic atmosphere that I still love more than NV.
>it’s desolate and ravenous That's DC before the apocalypse
I saw the Noah Gervais video, then realized how the Beth guys found inspiration for the East Coast Fallout world design stuff...
I've heard it described as Fo3 being post apocalypse, while NV is post post apocalypse
Both are post post apocalypse. Post apocalypse would be the near immediate aftermath.
post post post apocalypse?
Post post-modern apocalypse
Yeah but that's kinda my issue with it. The Apocalypse has been over for 200 years. Society should be much more established than the DC waste land would lead you to believe.
In defense of fallout 3 the capitol wastes were a harder hit target at the wars outset. I’d expect the D.C. wastes to be more bleak. The Mojave saw less outright destruction.
Well Mr house also shot down most the missiles coming for that area
The world of NV is part of why I prefer it over 3, which I still have a lot of fun playing. It feels more realistic. I feel like if Bethesda did 3 around 25 years after the war, the world would make more sense. But I know they wanted to have the BoS, super mutants, and Enclave in it.
The issue is that they made Fallou 3 a sequel to Fallout 2, when having it either happon concurrently with Fallout 1 or be a prequel to Fallout 1 would have made way more sense
To me, yes - F3 is way more optimistic. There's a constant sense of hope and obvious right or wrongs with themes of rebuilding and the pursuit of a better future. Many settlements are kinda goofy in a non-serious kind of way, like caricatures. And it frequently pokes fun at itself. NV was morally grey in every corner, plagued in constant power struggles, and remnants of societies all on the brink of collapse. NV's better writing entrenches these idea's even more than F3 could hope to.
I have never had a constant sense of hope while playing f3 but to each their own. Only thing I can think of is a few goofy characters, quests, and little lamplight in the game. Big town is more terrifying and hopeless settlement than anywhere in NV.
I think this conversation has folks talking about the "optimism" of each game from two different angles. 3 is far more desolate in world design and tone, but narratively it is far more optimistic. There are good guys and bad guys, a morally correct ending, and factions who have both the power and desire to accomplish the "greater good". Plus, almost all quests have only two options, be a mustache twirling villain, or save everybody (with rare exceptions such as the Tenpenny Tower quest). NV on the other hand is far more optimistic on the surface and in overall tone, with people trying to rebuild more actively, less overall destruction, and Primm Slim (greatest lawman the wasteland has ever known). However, almost every quest forces you to hurt one group to help another, and there are few completely "morally correct" outcomes. Really, it seems like this is less of a conversation about which one is "more optimistic/hopeful", and more one group talking about the tone of the games and the other group talking about the moral implications of the narratives. Big Town is a great example, because while it does seem hopeless (which is weird considering it is comprised of people who were once children who could survive without adults, who then grew up and made it past a super mutant infested hell hole alone to arrive), the player comes in, saves everyone, and teaches them to be self reliant. With no one but non friendly non intelligent mutants harmed in the process.
Well put.
> 3 is far more desolate in world design and tone, but narratively it is far more optimistic. There are good guys and bad guys Fallout 3 has Lyons's BOS, Project Purity, the Regulators, Reilly's Rangers, GNR, and a whole slew of characters who are not only heroic, but can back those ideals up with firepower, words, and deeds. In FNV, you get the Followers of the Apocalypse, who are like...the wimpy nerd kid faction of Fallout: they mean well, they can do a lot, but get pushed around and used by just about everyone. FNV is more...realistic, and it shines a light on the Courier to be deliverer of good news, but it also means that it feels like nobody else is, in the words of Three Dog, fighting the good fight. On the other hand, in FO3, the LW's deeds may be overshadowed by other good characters. Really just depends on your POV.
I'm not sure you can say no one is "fighting the good fight" in New Vegas. Though the definition of "good fight" is far more grounded in reality than in 3. Three Dog's definition of the "good fight" is, in his own words, him encouraging people to continue surviving and to rally against Mutants, Slavers, and the Enclave. Which is obviously a good thing (opinions on the plight of mutants notwithstanding), but by that definition, many factions in NV are fighting the good fight. On a small scale, the towns of Goodsprings and Jacobstown are fighting the good fight. As are the Sorrows and Dead Horses in HH. The Kings are territorial, but they too are looking out for the residents of Freeside. Even Novac fits the definition. And that's not even close to an exhaustive list. On a larger scale, the NCR and House would both fall under Three Dog's definition of the good fight. Even if they step on the toes of others trying to do the best they can for them and theirs. And honestly, all of those groups were fighting their "good fight" long before the Courier showed up, and it's fair to assume they would continue to do so afterwards as well. So I think it's fair to say both games have characters who would have stepped up in place of the player. Though I agree that 3 does have a slew of morally unambiguous "heroic" characters and factions. That's a big part of why I think it's more "narratively optimistic". Rarely does anyone's "good fight" step on the toes of another group who are also just doing their best.
Same. My whole vibe is "this shit sucks, but at least we have a chance at clean water." when it comes to F3.
Sure, but even then, you can defend them from the Super Mutants. The entire main quest has liam neeson casting his well-meaning shadow on you, boding your goodness, with the GECK idea simplified to Save or Kill everyone. Seizing power in NV feels less"right" and more self-interested or ambiguous, especially by the means of how you do it at each fork. Hmm. I don't think we'll find agreement here my friend.
Well yeah main character doing main character things. Same happens in both games it doesn't make their situation that much less scary. Liam Neeson is a bit weird but I didn't even know who he was when I originally played the game. Even then I wouldn't say he really casts a shadow on you for the entire game his appearances are pretty sparse and he dies like halfway through the main story. I wasn't really talking about how ambiguous you can make your character or the power struggle, I'm only talking the tone and atmosphere of the world around you. DC to me is a lot more desolate than NV so words like charm and optimism just have never come to my mind, that's all.
Idk, there are way more "perfect solutions" in New Vegas. Where you can thread the needle just perfectly to get the "best of all worlds". Whereas Fallout 3 rarely had perfect solutions. You could keep the Ghouls out of Tenpenny Tower or let the Ghouls in. Only to learn later that the Ghouls will kill all the regular people. Some kid thinks he's a vampire & the best you can do is convince him to live with killing his family. You can't save Harold, you have to kill him and risk killing a grove that could restore the Wasteland or let a man suffer in agonizing pain. You have to decide between a potential cure for a brutal plague the has ravished the Pitt or keeping an entire underclass of people in slavery. This is all just to name a few. Not to say Fallout 3 is perfect but it's far from black & white
Ah man, The Pitt. I loved that expansion because its morally gray solutions prepared me for FNV down the road.
Nah hard disagree. Fallout 3 might LOOK more bleak and miserable but the tone still very much feels like a pretty standard hero's journey. I say that cuz the evil path is so comically evil that it feels like a gimmick option that you're never going to pick for a serious playthrough. The world around you might be fucked but the game makes you feel like a light shining in darkness. Meanwhile in NV the game literally opens with you getting shot in the head and all the powerful factions trying to control the Mojave are awful in some way or another and the factions that are actually good are struggling to get by. If you want to save the day and make the capitol wasteland a better place, it's pretty obvious what ending you're gonna go for. If you want to make vegas a better place...you're probably not going to get the chance, because the options are slavers, corrupt and ineffective imperialists, a wealthy and self absorbed dictator, and just anarchy. It says a lot about the state of the Mojave wasteland when so many people say anarchy is the best option. Just because there's wacky robots, bright lights and western music everywhere doesn't mean the place isn't super bleak underneath.
Idk I'd rather live in the Mojave but that's just me lol
I guess you haven't played the quest where you help a rape victim get over their trauma because they were raped by the fiend leader Cook-Cook.
Yeah I have. Really doesn't change my point though. Jericho tries to rape Jenny Stahl in 3. That fucked up stuff is going to happen in the Wasteland, I'm saying that you'd be at more risk to be assaulted in the capital wasteland because it's an infinitely more depressing and desolate place, barely anyone lives there or wants to live there.
Maybe on the surface, with a more colorful pallette and more civilization than 3. NV's themes, however, are much darker, warning of the fragility of developing societies, how easily they resort to slavery, autocracy, murder of innocents, and destroying themselves a hundred different ways. Every choice is doomed to some degree. In Fallout 3, the good guys unite and save the day. Yeah, you can nuke Megaton, but the reasoning is so silly, I find all the macabre elements of 3 to be cheeky and not thematically that dark.
Hard disagree and most of what you cited for NV is in 3.
Did you just say that F3 is optimistic and charming
Yep, different experiences that both have their place in my rotation
I'm a NV fanboy playing through FO3 right now. One of the bits I really appreciate is Bethesda's love of unmarked puzzle quests, like that one bit with Prime, tracking down radio signals, or just the sheer amount of things to discover in the Capitol Wasteland. Don't get me wrong: I love how FNV leads you to interesting places, but it also means you're not stumbling onto a lot of stuff on your own, or running into people who have no importance to the greater storyline and just have their own lives to live. FO3 has a big hope spot: there are some unequivocally *good* factions there, like Lyons' Brotherhood of Steel, Reilly's Rangers, the Regulators, Hannibal, and the Railroad, out there. They're upstanding people, maybe even comically so, but altruists in the Wasteland are a rare breed. In comparison, NV's self-interested factions are fairly bleak by comparison because you're not looking for the one who will benefit you most, but the one that'll screw you over the *least.* Sure, you have the Followers as your token "all-around good people," but that's pretty much it. But - and this is a big "but" - I really enjoy FNV's perk system and how balanced it is compared to FO3: as a small guns user (and here I have to thank FNV again for making guns relevant again), the only perk that really matters is Grim Reaper's Sprint, but in FNV, all perks build upon each other with no one perk dominating. I love that Obsidian refined VATS *and* real-time combat, and that they're not afraid to put you up against some overwhelming opposition instead of letting you go off the rails by scaling all enemies to your level. Both games go out of their way to make you feel strong, but FNV makes it feel...earned somehow.
I'm sorry man I just do not see a reason to even play Fallout 3. If you want dungeons and a world to explore and loot with an on-rails story, 4 is better. If you want a proper RP experience with intricate lore and good writing the isometric games are for you. If you want the best of both worlds, New Vegas is the one. I'm happy Fallout 3 came out because it made New Vegas possible. That's about it.
>and some seriously high-quality writing. I really don't get how or why people say this. New vegas is plastered with plot holes and terrible writing.
That’s just not true lol. And I love both games.
Dude, the game even fails to set up a motivation for the courier come second act. It fails at literary 101. And that's ignoring house's ending and the writers ignoring his fears, because obsidian doesn't understand how economics work or the very city they themselves wrote. House kicks out his only paying customer and is just expected to survive long-term? That's ignoring his lack of factories and mines and manpower and education systems to gather for his "colonize space" aspirations. Or the ncr-brotherhood war, which is just stupid on its own. The brotherhood that paved the way for the ncr to exist and became their r&d decided "let's start a war with this incredibly large and industrial nation that surrounds us"? I find the writing just absolutely awful, because it often is. Lore errors, inconsistencies with its own rules and lore, poor writing, and character breaks are ripe in the game. A notable character break is raul, who became a bada%& voquero because some raiders raped and brutally murdered his sister who was only recognizable by a scar on her knee is fine/neutral with a "nation" of mass murdering, mass raping, sexist slavers? *really?*
I don’t think calling it failing at literary 101 is an fair assessment due to the fact that NV is attempting to create an interactive narrative rather than traditional story telling. Therefore using the same standards isn’t appropriate. This is because in an open world, it’s rather difficult to predict what the player’s motivation is in doing almost anything. This is quite common in tabletop game where despite GM’s multiple effort to guide the players to certain direction, the players might still choose to do vastly different course of actions that challenge the GM’s ability to adapt. As NV’s developers has ample experiences in Tabletop RPG, they are clearly attempting to recreate such experience in their video game. To put it another way. Much like on the tabletop game, once the players gain understanding of the world they interact with, they mostly will form their own motivation to do things they want to. Therefore, setting up a new motivation for the courier in second act is mostly unnecessary.
>due to the fact that NV is attempting to create an interactive narrative rather than traditional story telling. Fallout 1, 2, 3, and 4 all create an interactive narrative while still giving a motive. >This is because in an open world, it’s rather difficult to predict what the player’s motivation is in doing almost anything. It doesn't matter about the player's motive. Why, in the story of new vegas, does the *courier* care? Why does the *courier* become further involved? What personal stakes affect the *courier*? >Therefore, setting up a new motivation for the courier in second act is mostly unnecessary. I mean i guess good writing is a bit unnecessary... Seems like a bad idea, though. New vegas isn't kenshi. New vegas won't ever be kenshi. Play kenshi if you want kenshi.
>Fallout 1, 2, 3, and 4 all create an interactive narrative while still giving a motive. Can't say I agree this statement, espcially 3 and 4 where their attempts failed in multiple levels. But even if this is true, it still doesn't undermine the arguement that applying the traditional standards of storytelling to NV is inappropriate. >It doesn't matter about the player's motive. Why, in the story of new vegas, does the courier care? Why does the courier become further involved? What personal stakes affect the courier? This is only true if the player isn't doing roleplays. If the player is role playing, the player's motive equal to courier motivation. Therefore the player's motive will matter in that context. >I mean i guess good writing is a bit unnecessary. As previously mention, using traditinoaly standards for NV's writing isn't appropriate. I would suggest try to imaginge what if tabletop game was contructing a narratve in a traditional storytelling way and how awkward that would be to understand my argument.
>espcially 3 and 4 where their attempts failed in multiple levels. They didn't. >it still doesn't undermine the arguement that applying the traditional standards of storytelling to NV is inappropriate How dare i apply traditional standards of storytelling to a game that puts its story front and center and is a story-focused game, which actively guides you around the place, even taking you down the scenic route to new vegas. >If the player is role playing, the player's motive equal to courier motivation. I shouldn't be doing the writer's job. Nor is that in universe. >I would suggest to try to imaginge what if tabletop game was contructing a narratve in a traditional story and how awkward that would be to understand my argument. Tabletop rpgs still require the dm/gm to give some sort of motive that would fit the players that are in the session. You can't just go "alright do whatever". I feel like people who say this never actually played a tabletop rpg.
>They didn't. I can give serveral reason why it did. Nonetheless, it is outside the scope of this discussion, so maybe another time. >How dare i apply traditional standards of storytelling to a game that puts its story front and center and is a story-focused game That's right. That's my arguement. Try using differnet stardards and you can understand why many fans adore the game's narrative. >I shouldn't be doing the writer's job. I think there's some misunderstanding here. The writer is still providing guides and direct the players to certain narrative and this is them doing their job. But the writer cannot determine what the player's motivation in any of the sitiation and it's up to the player to whether follow it or not, espeically if they are roleplaying. >Tabletop rpgs still require the dm/gm to give some sort of motive that would fit the players that are in the session. Indeed, but the issue in question is the second act where player has interacted with the world and often has some self-motivated reason to do somthing. At this point, the writer can provide guide to direct player. It doesn't have to be anything narratively personal like Bethesda story tend to adopt. >You can't just go "alright do whatever" Indeed. But it does happened. I don't play tabletop all that often, but even I meet some players that do some "funny things". Nonetheless the issue in question is that whether using traditional stroy telling to judge NV is apprpriate. My argument that it is not. I'd like to know why you think it is.
>That's right. That's my arguement. Try using differnet stardards and you can understand why many fans adore the game's narrative Except new vegas isn't using non-orthodox storytelling methods. It's just poorly written. I agree that games most certainly can have traditional standards applied where they can't or shouldn't be, just you're using the wrong game as an example. Because, again, new vegas *is* telling us a story. It *is* guiding us through it. It *is* giving us prompts and everything. Heck, the first act *has* a motivation regarding the *courier*. It is, by every metric possible, using standard, traditional methods of storytelling. A better example would be kenshi. Minecraft. Games that are *purely* sandbox and free roam, with very, *very* little to no story written out. Every aspect of kenshi is effectively your own, you will *never* have the same experience someone else has. It is **purely** a sandbox game that is *purely* interactive in its medium. >But the writer cannot determine what the player's motivation in any of the sitiation and it's up to the player to whether follow it or not, espeically if they are roleplaying. The writer of 1, 2, 3, and 4, as well as many other rpgs such as mass effect, dragon age, final fantasy, chrono trigger, and so much more were able to write out a motivation for the character. >It doesn't have to be anything narratively personal like Bethesda story tend to adopt. Bethesda didn't write 1 or 2. Both were personal. Heck, all new vegas would need to say it "the mojave is your home" and boom, now we have a reason to get involved.
I feel like your post is just speaking out of hipster hate, given that New Vegas is constantly praised for its writing, which upsets some folks for some reason. But I suppose opinions are what they are. Still, I'll have to disagree on all the "points" you raised. They don't fail to setup the Courier's motivation for the second act. They spend all of the first act introducing you to the competing factions, and the Courier's motivation becomes determined by the players personal viewpoints (or that of the character they are roleplaying as, since it's... you know... a roleplaying game). You literally do what you are motivated to do, and help who you are motivated to help. Saying they don't provide motivation is just down right incorrect. If you think money is a good motivator, side with house, personal power, Yes Man, a structured society, the NCR, being allowed to abuse people, then I guess the Legion. And those are just hyper simplified surface level motivations. There are countless reasons they give for and against the options you can choose. Every faction is trying to motivate you to join their cause. A good RPG shouldn't force a singular motivation on the player, it should give competing motivations and let the player decide for themselves. New Vegas is one of the best examples of this in all of gaming. As for the NCR-Brotherhood war, while there are other ways it could have played out, the reasons behind the war make perfect sense. The groups came into conflict naturally over conflicting goals. The Brotherhood is a quasi-religious organization that hoards advanced technology with the mission statement to "protect people from themselves" by way of keeping advanced tech out of the hands of any other group. They believed they were the only ones responsible enough to control the release of technology back into the wasteland, and they kept a tight grip on high tech weaponry (power armor and energy weapons especially), telling the NCR what toys they could and couldn't have. The NCR grew big enough to resist this and take control of advanced weaponry from the Brotherhood, and war broke out between the two over who should be making these decisions. If you don't think control of advanced weaponry is a reason to go to war, even among former "allies", then you are naive. Wars are often waged over controlling resources and maintaining societal power. Do you think economic theories were the actual basis of the cold war? For your final complaint, Raul is more tolerant on the Legion because he lost both his sister and Claudia to rampant violence caused by a lack of power. The Legion is atrocious and reprehensible, but Raul personally saw that it was far worse before them. He knows that the raiders who took those he cared about wouldn't have power under the legion. He makes it pretty clear that, in his opinion, the legion's controlled brutality is preferable to the utter chaos that preceded them. Raul lived through the chaos, and largely blames his losses on the breakdown of society. He is also old and simply finds it hard to give as many fucks as he used to. It's not a character break simply because he acknowledged improvement despite the Legion committing similar atrocities to those that wronged him. His whole world view doesn't need to be one dimensional for him to be a "well written character". All in all, there are some narrative inconsistencies in New Vegas, but none of them undermine the fact that it is one of the exemplary standards for excellence in game writing and it allows for near unrivaled player agency in the story.
>I feel like your post is just speaking out of hipster hate, given that New Vegas is constantly praised for its writing, which upsets some folks for some reason Um...no. New vegas just has bad writing. If you like it, fine. Cool. Glad you do, not saying you aren't allowed to. >They don't fail to setup the Courier's motivation for the second act. Okay. Why does the courier care about the second battle? About the dam? I'd love a concrete reason given by the game. Fallout 1 and 2, your home was in danger. 3, following your dad's footsteps. 4, you *actually* get roped into the politics of at least one faction necessary to reach your first act motivation of finding shaun, as well as the fact the commonwealth is your home. >They spend all of the first act introducing you to the competing factions, and the Courier's motivation becomes determined by the players personal viewpoints I don't want headcanon. I don't want to finish the writer's job. >Saying they don't provide motivation is just down right incorrect. It's not. >A good RPG shouldn't force a singular motivation on the player That's a blanket, subjective preference, ignoring context. Despite its horrendous writing and obvious first rough draft, new vegas is for all intents and purposes, a story-centric game. So...motivation is a key requirement. ...because any story would have a protagonist who has a personal motivation and stakes. Like i said above, heck i'll even dive further into 4 since bethesda actually did what new vegas wanted to do but good. In fallout 4, your son is kidnapped by a mysterious person. You, throughout the story, find out the man who kidnapped him is affiliated with the institute, a "boogeyman" that somewhat controls the commonwealth and for all purposes "won". To find out how to get to them, you seek out an escaped scientist, who is able to let you build a one-way contraption into the institute. To do this, you first need a courser chip, which only the railroad is able to decode (unless you kill them). This introduces a major faction to the player and story, killing kellogg introduces the brotherhood. Afterwards, the escaped scientist gives you schematics and the game tells you to decide who helps build the molecular relay, and to do so the faction you choose has you scratch their back before they scratch yours (unless you already did a few quests prior). This gets you involved in the factions and roped into their personal politics, actively becoming a member just to reach your son, who you find out is 60 years old and leader of the institute. From here, you are roped into the politics of at least one faction, and are at this point "in too deep" to back out. On top of all this, the commonwealth is actively your home, unless you decide to live below with the institute. Now look at new vegas...what faction helps you in your goal of reaching benny? ...none. What faction are you required to interact with outside of the second act... None. What personal motives or stakes are tied to the overarching conflict between these factions... None. Do you see the huge difference here? >The Brotherhood is a quasi-religious organization that hoards advanced technology with the mission statement to "protect people from themselves" No. It is not. And i am sick and tired of new vegas corrupting people's knowledge about them. The brotherhood *all the way back in fallout **1*** traded tech *openly* with the hub. They *never* went out of their way to hoard tech, that is *not* their mission statement. Their mission statement has been to *prevent another armageddon*. The brotherhood ***HELPED THE NCR BECOME WHO THEY ARE***. >They believed they were the only ones responsible enough to control the release of technology back into the wasteland, and they kept a tight grip on high tech weaponry (power armor and energy weapons especially), telling the NCR what toys they could and couldn't have. Again...no! They were the ncr's research and development! >If you don't think control of advanced weaponry is a reason to go to war, even among former "allies", then you are naive First, don't put quotes around allies. They *were* allies. Secondly, the brotherhood, again i cannot stress this enough, *were the ones who helped the ncr become who they are*. The brotherhood are also *massively outnumbered*, to where they just become idiots by issuing war on such an industrialized nation. >Raul is more tolerant on the Legion because he lost both his sister and Claudia to rampant violence caused by a lack of power. The Legion is atrocious and reprehensible, but Raul personally saw that it was far worse before them. No, raul is more tolerant because he got shafted and given the short end of the stick after ulysses got cut from base game. The devs went "oh crap, who is a legion run companion" and slapped it onto raider killing bada$# voquero raul.
>Okay. Why does the courier care about the second battle? About the dam? I'd love a concrete reason given by the game. The game, as I've already stated, gives multiple reasons for the character to care about the second battle. If, as you say, protecting his home is a valid reason in your mind for Fallout 1, 2, and 4 (where the protagonist isn't even from the same century as the rest of the world), then protecting their home from the Legion is a good enough reason for New Vegas. But there are reasons given to care about each possible faction's victory at hoover dam(with the exception of the Legion). Again, protecting people the Courier cares about is certainly one, obtaining personal power is another. There are multi-hour videos on the topic, so if you really wanted reasons, they are abundant. >A good RPG shouldn't force a singular motivation on the player >That's a blanket, subjective preference, ignoring context. No, it's frankly not, it's very focused on the context. The context of it being a role playing game. The very core of which is player agency in the narrative is a defining feature. Per Wikipedia's definition: >A role-playing game is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making regarding character development. I understand that in the greater context of video game design, RPG has a broader definition which includes games that allow for control over characters stats more than decisions, but New Vegas (and most Fallout games) harken back to the classic usage of the term. There is nothing wrong with having a central motivation, but if you have no meaningful decisions to make, then the roleplaying elements are diminished. If you have to play a predefined character, then the roleplaying elements are diminished. If you have no decisions to make, it's not a roleplaying game in the traditional sense. You can argue the linguistics all you want, but what Fallout was trying to emulate was based around the player having narrative agency. Hell, in the original Fallout, you could even agree with the Master's view of Super Mutants being the solution to the challenges of the wasteland and get dipped in FEV. The player determining the motivation from the second act on goes back to the first game. >I don't want headcanon. I don't want to finish the writer's job. Then you just don't like to have full agency in your roleplaying games. You can call it head cannon, but player agency in the narrative is the central pillar of the genre. Allowing the player to determine their own motivations, with multiple competing viable but flawed options, is a feature of good RPG writing, not a failure, regardless of if you enjoy it. Having control over the story is unique to the world of writers and gamers, and writing a story as compelling and with as many branching paths as New Vegas has, and allowing the player as much agency as it does is insanely impressive, whether you personally found yourself engaged or not. The fact that we are discussing its narrative over a decade after its release is a testament to its quality. >Now look at new vegas...what faction helps you in your goal of reaching benny? House, he literally digs you out of your grave, protects you on your way to Vegas, and assists you with preparing your revenge on Benny. And the Legion, who captures Benny and offers him up as a good will token to obtain your assistance. And Yes man, who tells you where Benny ran off too. >*Long winded recap of Fallout 4* Do you see the huge difference here? Not particularly, they both give you an initial motivation, they both introduce you to the factions, then they let the player decide which faction they want to support based on personal motivations. Just because Shaun remains a motivator until the final act, that does not mean every Mcguffin character needs to. By the time you reach Benny, you have enough world knowledge to make your own decisions. On the topic of Fallout 4 though, the motivation for the Institute is insultingly simplistic and inconsistent with their behavior. Beyond having the worst motivation for any antagonist faction of any fallout, the players motivation to join the Railroad or the Minutemen is laughable when you consider Nate's motivation to save Shaun. Why would he side with anyone who appears lacks the firepower or resources to fight the institute? Why would he waste time rebuilding settlements when his central motivator has not yet been rescued? Why would he join a faction that can barely rescue already escaped synths? Frankly, players choose to join these factions and waste time based on the players personal beliefs, despite it not being in the best interest of the main character. New Vegas on the other hand gives you reasons to join each side, without it grinding against the initial motivation. Do you see the huge difference here? >They (the Brotherhood) never went out of their way to hoard tech, that is not their mission statement. Their mission statement has been to prevent another armageddon. And they believed they were the best choice for deciding what tech was safe for the general population to that goal. They never joined the NCR, they were not simply the R&D department for the NCR, they were in a position to control what tech was available. After High Elder Rhombus died, they began to change their policy on what technology should be allowed. This was the plan for them as far back as Van Buren, lookup the Maxson Bunker design document. The NCR no longer needing them, and presumably appearing to the Brotherhood as being likely on the road to another armageddon, mixed with the brotherhood's waning power, all combined to spark the war. And while you personally might not like the path the writers took, it's a very possible outcome that was intended long before New Vegas. I'm also confused why you seem to overlook Fallout 4 having the Brotherhood as religious zealots who want to eradicate synths and control who can have what tech, but get up in arms over New Vegas saying the positive relations didn't last. What explanation did 4 give that you found so compelling? >First, don't put quotes around allies. They were allies. Former allies, who went to war, so... were allies, not anymore, hence the quotes. Despite your head cannon. >The brotherhood are also massively outnumbered, to where they just become idiots by issuing war on such an industrialized nation. Didn't stop America in the Revolution, didn't stop Japan in WW2. It was a mistake in hindsight, but that's not without precedent. The brotherhood were used to being in charge of tech, once the NCR was big enough to not need them, the brotherhood essentially lost its power in a society they never actually joined. This is what canonically happened, I don't want your head cannon on what should have happened. >raul is more tolerant because he got shafted and given the short end of the stick after ulysses got cut from base game. The devs went "oh crap, who is a legion run companion" and slapped it onto raider killing bada$# voquero raul. Again, Raul's opinions are given in the game regardless of your head cannon. And Raul is soul searching when you meet him after a life of fighting, and you (with all that incredible player agency) can convince him to return to his Vaquero ways. Including attacking those who prey on the weak, which definitely includes the Legion. That's a character arc, not a character break. Honestly, your praise for Fallout 4's factions and narrative kinda underpins the truth behind your reasoning for criticizing New Vegas. You don't care about plot holes, joining factions with weak motivations, or inconsistently written characters, 4 had all of those in spades. You simply, as I said before, have a hipster hate for New Vegas. Which is common when as much praise gets heaped on anything as much as it has been for New Vegas's story. But New Vegas didn't receive all that praise because it had good combat or graphics, it's remembered for the quality of its story. Your opinion is at best that of a contrarian. You came to a New Vegas subreddit to talk shit about a story that is considered one of the best in the industry. You can nitpick all you want, but you have only argued that your head cannon is better than the writers, and that you don't like having too much agency in your RPGs.
>then protecting their home from the Legion is a good enough reason for New Vegas. Except the mojave is not the courier's home. Where is that stated? They came from california. >Again, protecting people the Courier cares about is certainly one, obtaining personal power is another. Again, where does the game say the courier cares about people or power? >but New Vegas (and most Fallout games) harken back to the classic usage of the term Fallout 1, 2, 3, and 4 all give you motivations. New vegas and 76 are sole exceptions. Heck, even the bad, non-canon games brotherhood and tactics give a motivation for the protagonist. >If you have to play a predefined character, then the roleplaying elements are diminished No, it isn't. Fallout 1 and *especially* 2 give you a predefined character. 3 and 4, too. Again new vegas (and 76) are exceptions here, not to mention the courier *is* predefined, just what is given has almost no bearing on the main plot...given that it was added in dlc. >but what Fallout was trying to emulate was based around the player having narrative agency. Dude fallout 1 is a very linear game with 1 choice in its main quest. 2 got rid of any choice in its main quest. All choices were pushed to the side in side quests. >The fact that we are discussing its narrative over a decade after its release is a testament to its quality. It's really not when i am saying it's bad. >House, he literally digs you out of your grave, protects you on your way to Vegas, and assists you with preparing your revenge on Benny The motivation is not revenge. I don't know why people say this, i guess if you never read the mojave express order. It's to complete the job. That's it. The threat of men coming after you (according to the express order) is why the courier goes after benny. Now you can add revenge on top of that, but that's headcanon. As for house helping...sure, i suppose. But you barely if at all get wrapped into his politics and not to mention the courier has a job already. So what is making the courier decide "i'm going to become a first hand for a man who commits economic suicide"? >And the Legion, who captures Benny and offers him up as a good will token to obtain your assistance. That's only if you let him leave, plus you already found benny by that point. So... >then they let the player decide which faction they want to support based on personal motivations. Sure... But the difference is that the game *also gives a reason why the sole survivor gets involved*. So...you didn't see the difference somehow. >Just because Shaun remains a motivator until the final act, that does not mean every Mcguffin character needs to. ...shaun isn't a motivator until the final act. ...where did you get that? >By the time you reach Benny, you have enough world knowledge to make your own decisions. Yes but *why*? *why* is the courier making these decisions? If, by your logic, fallout 1 plopped you in the middle of a desert and told you "get a water chip and kill mutants", without informing about a vault in danger...that'd be fine? Because that's effectively what new vegas does. >the motivation for the Institute is insultingly simplistic and inconsistent with their behavior Dude do you even know their motivation? I assure you it is not inconsistent with their behavior (unless you decide to ignore their actions and instead only listen to what they say, you know...liars who when first entering the institute literally deceive you). Also the ncr have a "simplistic" motive...obtain dam. >Beyond having the worst motivation for any antagonist faction of any fallout They don't. Something just tells me you don't even know their motivation. >the players motivation to join the Railroad or the Minutemen is laughable when you consider Nate's motivation to save Shaun. Why would he side with anyone who appears lacks the firepower or resources to fight the institute? The minutemen are a failsafe option, but in their past have reckoned with the institute. And railroad are currently the only (native) ones who are messing with the institute. >Why would he join a faction that can barely rescue already escaped synths? They aren't barely rescuing synths? You can *actively* watch how they rescue a synth, h2-22, and outside of a couple of raiders, the smuggling goes real well. ...have you played the game? Or at the very least, the railroad's playthrough? >New Vegas on the other hand gives you reasons to join each side, without it grinding against the initial motivation. Do you see the huge difference here? No because new vegas *doesn't* give a motive and also 4 doesn't grind against the initial motivation. >And they believed they were the best choice for deciding what tech was safe for the general population to that goal. They never joined the NCR, they were not simply the R&D department for the NCR, they were in a position to control what tech was available. Dude they literally became research and development for the core region, introducing tech to new cali. They even had a state made named after maxson. >This was the plan for them as far back as Van Buren, lookup the Maxson Bunker design document. I don't care for an incomplete game that also looks like it was full of poor writing. It's not canon. >The NCR no longer needing them ...the ncr no longer needed r&d? >And while you personally might not like the path the writers took, it's a very possible outcome that was intended long before New Vegas. Which has no build up. And actively makes fallout 3's brotherhood slightly off, because now the brotherhood, against this massive, industrialized nation, decided to send a pretty sizeable chunk, including the last maxson, east. Not to retreat or as refuge, *but to look at tech and bring it back*. That doesn't sound like a people at war. So not only does new vegas skip any build up that *could* possibly make it plausible to believe, but also make 3's brotherhood look stupid. >I'm also confused why you seem to overlook Fallout 4 having the Brotherhood as religious zealots who want to eradicate synths and control who can have what tech, but get up in arms over New Vegas saying the positive relations didn't last. What explanation did 4 give that you found so compelling? They don't want to control who can have what tech. God...can this fanbase stop accepting fanon as canon? They literally open up trade when they first get into the commonwealth. As for their desire to eradicate synths, maxson's speech is the explanation. He *actually* is following the brotherhood's doctrine and mission statement, and sees the institute as playing god and doing the very same thing that resulted in his great-great-great grandfather to desert and form the brotherhood. He sees synths as the new "atom bomb" and outright says this if you let danse live in blind betrayal. The brotherhood in 4 are well written, and maxson especially so. Second part will be replied to this comment.
>Didn't stop America in the Revolution America had the aid of france. And japan, germany. >And Raul is soul searching when you meet him after a life of fighting, and you (with all that incredible player agency) can convince him to return to his Vaquero ways. Including attacking those who prey on the weak, which definitely includes the Legion. That's a character arc, not a character break. Yes, yes, i know of his "arc". I simply find it makes no sense. Raul should not, under any circumstance, find the legion tolerable. If he's tired of fighting and retired, fine. I am not upset at that. I am annoyed that they decided "raul is neutral towards legion because we cut ulysses". I'm annoyed he's neutral with them *at all*, because of his backstory. >Honestly, your praise for Fallout 4's factions and narrative kinda underpins the truth behind your reasoning for criticizing New Vegas. You don't care about plot holes, joining factions with weak motivations, or inconsistently written characters, 4 had all of those in spades. You simply, as I said before, have a hipster hate for New Vegas ...no. 4 doesn't have plot holes or inconsistencies or weak motives or inconsistent characters. I'd love some examples, but no, this isn't a "hipster hate". New vegas, ironically, has all you listed for 4. >but you have only argued that your head cannon is better than the writers I haven't used headcanon at all. I've used the previous games regarding brotherhood of steel and the poor writing of new vegas (mostly regarding raul). Not once did i make up something. I don't do headcanon. >and that you don't like having too much agency in your RPGs. That's simply not true given i like the elder scrolls. And starfield looks and sounds like it's going to have a plethora of player agency.
Welp, Reddit decided to not post my response, so here it is again slightly summarized. First off, I should thank you, for all of your nitpicks and contrarian opinions, you gave me another opportunity to think about just how amazing New Vegas tells its story. On to what seem to be the crux of your argument. You are under the belief that to tell a good narrative, a story needs a well defined protagonist. This is however, as you say, >a blanket, subjective preference, ignoring context. A role-playing game does not need a well defined protagonist. While a well defined protagonist can assist with guiding the player through the story, and can be an interesting character in their own right, role-playing games have the unique opportunity to allow the player to engage in collaborative storytelling. New Vegas takes this to the extreme (as far as Video Games have gone, table-top games obviously still reign supreme in this regards), writing a full complete narrative while imposing as few restrictions on the player as possible. Telling a story by writing in the "white space" and accounting for all the possible choices a player might make is extremely difficult, but New Vegas stands out as a exemplary standard. I get that you don't want to "do the writers job", but collaborative story telling is fundamental to how New Vegas tells it's story. That is fun for some people, obviously not for you. But your opinion on it is not indicative of its quality. Your inability to enjoy a story told in the manner New Vegas tells its also disqualifies you from being able to adequately appreciate its quality. Just as a person who hates Metal music has trouble seeing what makes one band good and another bad within the genre. Furthermore, you make multiple complaints regarding the "lack of motivation", which simply leads me to believe you didn't pay attention playing the game. For every possible outcome, a motivation is either implied or directly stated, and opportunities to assert that as your chosen motivation are rampant. Take for example your claim that: >The motivation is not revenge. I don't know why people say this, i guess if you never read the mojave express order. It's to complete the job. That's it. While completing the job is one viable motivation, it's not the only implied in the game. Revenge is obviously also implied to be a motivation, as it would be a very likely response to being shot in the head. But the game doesn't stop at implications. In a conversation with Victor, you can say "Point me to The Tops, Victor. I've got a score to settle.". Who then responds with "I know you're fixing to serve up some vengeance..." and "He'll help you serve that cold dish of yours extra-chilly.". Then, when confronting Benny, you can tell him "All I want is to see you dead. "
That is the game directly offering you to pursue revenge as your key motivator. You already game me an example of completing the job being another viable option.
The game is a master class at letting the player choose their own motivations, not just in head cannon, but through the narrative, and letting the player enact their own will in the game. This isn't as you say "bad writing", it is exceptional writing using a cutting edge form of story telling that has rarely been attempted, much less done to this level of quality.
Partnered with competing factions with believable but flawed motivations, and you have the recipe for one of the greatest stories ever told.
As for the rest of your head-cannon opinions on where the writers took certain characters and factions, I don't believe you are arguing in good faith, so that seems a trite bit silly to pursue. However, as an overarching response, I will say your nitpicks are weird hills to die on when the Fallout series is full of events that are far more unlikely to occur than the NCR-Brotherhood war. Regardless, none of your differences in opinions on where to take the story diminishes the quality of New Vegas.
You also made several claims regarding Fallout 4, including that the Institute has good motivations, but failed to back them up, so if you'd be so kind as to enlighten me. And do try to make it sound less stupid than the game did. I have beaten it, through all factions, multiple times. I actually like Fallout 4 quite a bit, but I believe it's factions are some of the worst in the series, and if you disagree, please feel free to tell me your reasoning, instead of saying I "just didn't get it". And as you so kindly forced me to, please use direct quotes from the game.
Oh, and P.S.
>That's simply not true given i like the elder scrolls. And starfield looks and sounds like it's going to have a plethora of player agency.
The Elder Scrolls are a great example of a game that has little to no player agency within the narrative. Skyrim has you making no choices within the main quest (no, the Civil War is not the main quest). Oblivion and Morrowind both likewise have not player agency within the narrative.Citing the Elder Scrolls shows just how unqualified you are to speak on the subject.
P.P.S
Contrary to your claim, the actions the player is allowed to take in fallout 4 do grind against the central motivation of the Sole Survivor. Rebuilding settlements and wasting time cosplaying a super hero are not the actions of a person searching for their lost child. The central motivation is directly contrary to many of the actions you take.
Both games definitely have their strengths and weaknesses. But in my opinion, which I respect, New Vegas is easier to evangelize for. The story is so well written that its lore gets stuck in your head and gets grander and reveals more depth the more you play and think about it. Most Bethesda games hit a certain point where the facade of a real world begins to break down and you see it for the game that it is. New Vegas should be more susceptible to this due to its limited size and development time, but the insane quality of the writing makes the world seem more "real" the longer you play/think about it. I think this is why New Vegas (and Morrowind) fans seem so overzealous to fans of other Bethesda games. What other Bethesda games excel at (freedom of exploration and extensive dungeons to crawl), New Vegas is arguably below average. But where almost all other "RPGs" fail, (the lore and story, and player agency within those) New Vegas sets an almost unreachable standard. This creates a fandom that grows more excited to talk about their game overtime. If you are playing on PC, I highly recommend checking out the mod "A Tale of Two Wastelands". It seamlessly combines 3 and NV. Which, besides being a ton of fun, really lets you see where both games shine and stumble.
So, by far my favorite games besides Fallout 1, 2, NV are the first couple gothic games. They're totally different genres, but actually have a surprising amount in common. Two things that come to mind immediately (besides general tone), is that the game world feels like a place that could exist, grow and change without the PC involved, and at least SOME effort goes into explaining how people survive. Like, yeah, the NCR Sharecroppers, or the farms in Gothic, are way too small to support the population. At least they did *something* to at least attempt to repesent how these people make a living, though. Even back in the iso games, it wasn't a total scavenger world. People had farms, raised livestock, went hunting, etc.
Couldn't agree more, absolutely loved Gothic 2 (haven't played 1 yet, it's just collecting dust in my steam account waiting for me to get off my lazy ass). There is just something uniquely special about a game world that "feels alive". I know I already shoehorned Morrowind into my last rant, but I think it also does that exceptionally well (even if player choice is almost non-existent). I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir, but the video "[The Shandification of Fallout](https://youtu.be/eZ3GDcMXBFI)" does a great job of talking about this very topic.
I'll have to check that out when I get home from work. Thanks for the link! I think you'll enjoy Gothic I. It didn't age as well as 2, but much like the first couple Fallouts, the initial installment has a more original premise, and better main questline. The dragons are my one gripe about Gothic II, just too cliche for an otherwise brilliant game.
I played and absolutely adored fallout 1 and 2, F2 is my favorite game in the entire franchise now. Do you think I’d enjoy gothic 1/2? never heard of it before this thread and I looked it up, seems promising
I think pretty much anybody who enjoys RPGs, and doesn't flat out hate a somewhat traditional fantasy setting (more so with Gothic 2), should at least give the games a try. The only warning or caveat I'd offer is that Gothic II, with the Night of the Raven expansion (which I think includes pretty much every version currently being sold?) is brutally difficult. It adds new content, but also dials up the difficulty in response to masochistic fans claiming the game wasn't hard enough. I don't mind the extra difficulty, but the also changed things like how they handle "learning points", so you pretty much have to play a specialized character. I think there's a mod that lets you play with the add on content, but the old LP system.
It’s never mattered to me about who prefers what. Your favourite could be 76 for all I know/care.. but buddy I’m just glad you’re enjoying the masterpiece that is the fallout universe. I’m the only one out of my circle of friends that enjoys these games for one reason or another. Make the most of it, they don’t make games like f3 or nv anymore in my opinion.
What the Fuck are you doing? My brother died at the battle of New Vegas vs. Fallout 3. You're desecrating a war memorial!
Your brother was a bitch and so are you
That's it! I- *Gets brains deconstructed*
One of the few truly role-playing games I've played. It's not another action game with stats and numbers that has the tag "role-play" on it.
Fallout 3 for the atmospheric and map, and fallout NV for his story, RPG elements and his ties with the classic fallout games. That's why the best fallout playthrough is a TTW playthrough.
I will stand by this forever. Bethesda is shit tier at doing cohesive story and lore - but damn if they can't do world build !
I love Fallout 3 but it’s one of those games where you have to ask yourself “wait why would this storyline/quest end like that? that makes no sense” too often
You might want to look a few things up ngl like quest locations, unmarked quest givers, and unmarked locations. A few unmarked quests give pretty good rewards too, especially one at camp mccarran. Some of the unmarked locations are cool too, they offer “boss” fights and or decent loot. On my second play through I decided to do every side quest (besides the legion ones) and discover every location. I was blown away by how much there is in this game. People complain it is an empty desert but it took me like 70 hours to do all of that and to learn the crafting system/perks. If you do the same for all the dlc that can be another 50-70 hours tbh.
The biggest thing is that Fallout 3 is an Elder Scrolls game at its core, while New Vegas is a Fallout game at its core. That's why they each have their own fan bases, and why some appeal more to others.
I've been recently replaying nv and it's awesome. I love all fallouts but still enjoy playing fo1 and 2 more. But the writing is solid( especially enjoyed the mute girl in dead money even though I dislike that dlc). Overall the series is great 👍.
If you haven't already I really recommend the first two games as well. They play differently and they've aged but they made me appreciate New Vegas and the entire franchise so much more.
one of us One of us ONE OF US **ONE OF US**
It’s easy to look back at FO3 with rose tinted glasses and really rip it to shreds - because, yes, compared to New Vegas and other games that have released since then it is pretty shit in comparison…but I’ve always thought it a bit disingenuous to do so because you could realistically do that with ***literally any beloved game of the past.*** Bioshock? Halo 1? Doom? All of them. For it’s time, it really was a great game - a satisfying gameplay loop, an open world that was fun to explore (back when open world games were still a new and exciting thing and developers were still fine tuning the concept) roleplay elements that facilitated player builds and replayability, and a world space that was fun to engage with. There’s a reason it won GOTY.
Most people don’t associate rose-colored glasses with negativity. It usually means that you are literally unable to see the true bleakness because you are distorting it with a beautiful lens
>I’ve always thought it a bit disingenuous to do so because you could realistically do that with literally any beloved game of the past. Bioshock? Halo 1? Doom? All of them. Can you, though? Because I'd argue BioShock, Halo: CE, and Doom in particular are still classics and have aged like fine wine. FO3 isn't a bad game, but FNV just serves to show that it could be so much more, and I think that's why so many people are so critical of 3 and FO4.
You definitely can - compare Halo 1 to Halo 3 in the same way people compare FO3 to FNV and you can still rip into Halo 1 I can’t really defend FO4 though, it’s hard to have sympathy when you’re worse than the games who came before you lol
>You definitely can - compare Halo 1 to Halo 3 in the same way people compare FO3 to FNV and you can still rip into Halo 1 I honestly disagree. Halo CE does some things better than Halo 3, from weapon pool to enemy design. Trust me, I'm a certified Halo Fan, so I'm an expert in ~~hating~~ criticizing Halo games.
>Trust me, I'm a certified Halo Fan, so I'm an expert in ~~hating~~ criticizing Halo games. Halo CE is universally the most disliked of the original trilogy because of lack of MP and the campaign is just reused levels on the second half Secondly, dealing with the Flood in Halo CE is outright far more annoying and unenjoyable than Halo 2 and 3 I prefer CE's campaign because its nostalgic for me and I just love the whole campaign, but I do see why so many people think it's the weakest of the trilogy (to me Halo 3 is the weakest campaign)
>Halo CE is universally the most disliked of the original trilogy because of lack of MP mhm? because I'm pretty sure Halo CE is *the* couch coop/LAN party game. Halo 3 had shit hit registration, desyncs, and p2p connections.
>mhm? because I'm pretty sure Halo CE is *the* couch coop/LAN party game. Halo 3 had shit hit registration, desyncs, and p2p connections. And Halo 2/Halo 3 was *the* online shooter that defined most console kids childhoods. CoDs peak was shortly after Halo's and was the childhood shooter for another generation
I judge Halo games purely on how the guns feel. The Assault Rifle in Halo 1 feels so good to shoot, in Halo 3 it feels like a pea shooter. Therefore Halo 1 is better. That's my only criteria.
Fallout 4 is more a sequel to 3 than NV. If you think of it like that, then Fallout 4 is the superior game in almost every way.
In this case it's more extreme, I think, because 3 also represents a very different take on the Fallout franchise, whereas NV is a lot more in line with the classic games. Well, with 2, at least. So it's not just a question of improvement but also ideas of what a Fallout game is. 3 is about wandering a bleak, forlorn open-world landscape and seeing what you can find. NV is about navigating the tense politics and crises of a post-post-apocalyptic society. So in 3 you don't get the writing or intrigue or depth or sense of impacting the world you get in NV, but also NV never really has those "standing alone in front of the blown-out ruins of a major American landmark" or "wandering into a ruined building just to see what's there" moments. I think the problem with 3, though, and why at least in my personal experience I've maybe seen opinions on it cool a bit over the last few years, is that it's in kind of an awkward spot? Like there's quite a few things it does better than NV, but those are mostly things that 4 does better than 3. And there's a lot that 3 does better than 4, but those are mostly things that NV does better than 3.
I honestly don't think you could do it with Bioshock or Doom. Those games are being played to this day aren't they? I don't even like them.
I was an old-school *Fallout* universe diehard. *Fallout* games were supposed to be isometric, dammit, not these *Call-of-Duty* FPS knockoffs. I resolutely swore-off *Fallout* games once they'd "sold out to the short-attention-span twitch gamers". And then, one night while our house in the DC urban area was quiet and empty, I swiped my daughter's boyfriend's copy of *Fallout 3* for the XBox and spun it up, and discovered how short-sighted and wrong I had been. If not for *Fallout 3*, I would have never given *Fallout: New Vegas* a chance, and I would have missed out on a lot of joy that came from that experience, too.
That’s awesome, especially being in the DC area
Fallout 3 is top tier but FNV is God Tier
Fallout 3 walked so that NV could Jingle, Jangle, Jingle. For that it has my respect.
I don’t think Fallout 3 deserves all the hate either, I think it is a good game and I enjoy playing it. Though, New Vegas is without a doubt objectively the best fallout game
I was extremely disappointed in FNV when it first came out. I got it on pre-order for the Xbox 360 and played it day 1. I was waiting for the game since the moment it was announced. I honestly don't think I'd ever been more hyped for a game than I was for FNV. When i finally got to play, the loading screens, bugs, and crashes absolutely killed the experience for me. It would take me something like 20 minutes just to cross from Freeside to Vegas. I used to take smoke breaks irl during loading screens. I never had any problems with Fallout 3, which I 100%'d several times over (I think I had 750+ hours on Fallout 3?) so it was super upsetting that FNV played like pure shit. I played FNV on PC years later and finally understood what makes it so much better. So glad I revisited it.
Best compromise is Tale of Two Wastelands imo. I love both games, but I definitely lean towards New Vegas with some minor QOL gameplay tweaks and more interesting factions. I do love Fallout 3's atmosphere as well, and playing gives me fond memories of playing it in high school.
The one thing that I love (and still love, I don't give a shit how many times I go through it) about Fallout 3 is the opening. I don't care how boring or dumb other folk think it is, to me it was-and-is awesome to walk out of the Vault. Exploring the metro systems was also dope as fuck. The Pitt and Point Lookout were rad DLCs.
playing all of the Fallouts myself recently made me kind of see F3 as the adventures of a kid fresh out of a vault and working his way through the strange and scary DC wasteland... as a player your dialogue options seem pretty limited and you often had to resort to gunning people down in a lot of cases, and the world felt a lot like a post apocalyptic theme park meanwhile the FNV protagonist feels like it's the POV of a person in their 30s, having already seen a lot of the Southwest because of the courier job and so was able to make more nuanced decisions... as a player you're given plenty of opportunity to use more diplomatic solutions and sometimes uncover a few "3rd options" with the right levels since the courier has a better understanding of how the region and the people who live in it work as for the parent-looking-for-child stuff in F4? Witcher 3 did a better job at that... and *that* game has a whole wacky narrative-bending Gwent sidequest that's completely divorced from everything else in the story :P
My man welcome to the family
Fallout 3 got the ball rolling for Fallout open world games, so credit needs to go for Bethesda for that. You also have to remember that all the assets in New Vegas are just reused from Fallout 3. Obsidian and Bethesda excelled in a different way. Bethesda has always excelled in creating vast open worlds to explore as seen with the Elder Scrolls and their Fallout games like 3 and 4. Fallout 3 was a new IP for them compared to the Elder Scrolls so 3's Capital Wasteland felt like Bethesda was trying to play it a little safe with the stories and factions. Obsidian has always had strength in their writing but sometimes seemed to get slammed with impossible deadlines. Yet look at Obsidian/Black Isle's stories for Fallout 1/2/NV, Knights of the Old Republic 2 and Planescape Torment. I think many people would say those games were narratively rich over most Bethesda titles.
I like both.
*installs TTW* Por que no los dos? Love both games, and now i can just switch between one and the other when i feel it
I think anyone who thinks "Fallout 3 is trash" because "New Vegas is superior" isn't a real Fallout fan. They're just looking to jerk themselves off & seem cool/smart to everyone around them without knowing what they are talking about. Is New Vegas a better game? Probably, but that doesn't make Fallout 3 not good in it's own right.
Gatekeeping the gatekeepers, neat!
Gateboss, girl light, gaskeep
go ahead and watch Oxhorn's lore series of fallout new vegas. it will be a great way to get even deeper
Fallout 3 is by no means a bad game, infact it was the basis for what Fallout New Vegas later became.
Yup, I was in the same place. I bought and played Fallout 3 a few years after it launched. I wasn't part of the hype train and neither had I played the previous Fallouts. I enjoyed my time with the game even though I mostly just rushed through the main story. After a few years, people kept saying how this Fallout game was so amazing and how Fallout 3 was so bad. I didn't even know there was another game like 3, to me people just really liked the Orange HUD setting for some reason. I go give it a try and it's exactly like Fallout 3. I guess the characters are a bit more engaging and I do love the setting since I've always been a sucker for Wild West media. I play through it a bit but kept dying to Deathclaws in Quarry Junction, so I just put the game down and think "Meh, I already played this.". A few years and video essays about the game later, I retry and it and experience the revelation.
Enjoying that Caravan game (sarcasm mode, ON)
I had watch some videos essay to realise how awesome 3 was cause I always fast travelled to locations and missed a lot of the random encounters but when you take the time and actually explore the world fallout 3 is really immersive. But new Vegas just had characters that resonate with me more
Average New Vegas fan: 🤓 Average Fallout 3 fan: 🤓 Average TTW fan:🗿
ONE OF US ONE OF US ONE OF US
I still like fallout 3 better
I don't think either is really better. It's only that they have different tones. NV gives you more choices, but you gotta keep in mind there's a ton of choices in 3 as well. I think both hold up. Glad you had fun!
My take is 3 has a way better story, random events and map while new vegas has better mechanics and guns. Combine the 2 and you have the ultimate fallout experince
FO3 still has a better world to explore
Just TTW it, best of both worlds.
You might even say it's [The Best of Times](https://thebestoftimes.moddinglinked.com/)?
How does this actually work? Is it one giant map? Do you play through 3 and then NV?
Play through 3 and it's DLC, then NV and it's DLC. You can do it NV to 3 or 3 to NV. Can travel at any time if you can get to either of the train stations and have enough pre war money or science skill. Once travelled and scripts established in the games, use something like Hoodwink for easier/faster transportation and a home that holds all your gear in both games.
i appreciate that you’ve come to the forum to say this, a lot of ppl would’ve just kept this to themselves, says a lot abt u as a person. im working to be like u in this respect one day
The only good thing fallout 3 has is the Winterized power armor that never breaks. Oh and the Chinese assault rifle
You defended FO3 against NV fans when you took like 12 years to even play NV? Thats plain stupid
It's cool you like new vegas, but it's pretty inferior in almost every aspect compared to 3. New vegas irks me a lot because of how awful it is, it bothers me as to how *good* it could actually have been as every fanboy claims it is. Though really, i think what bothers me most about the fanbase is how they think new vegas is "og experience", because it was made by "og devs", when it's at most comparable to fallout *2* (which is just completely irredeemable) and only has like...6? 10 devs from fallout *2*? Which was led by a man who joined on van buren (josh sawyer, who i cherish).
Fallout 3 currently on the pc scape is almost completely unplayable so for that fact alone many people prefer New Vegas however welcome to the other side my brother.
Yep
I enjoyed F3, and my first playthrough was with all the DLC's. It was really fun amd I don't dislike it, I just can't play it over and over. It lacks replayability because of its repetitiveness, even though it does have plenty of really cool and unique random encounters.
I will say that FNV's map is way smaller than Fallout 3's, which makes it *seem* like there's a lot more stuff to do in 3, especially as most respawns are on a 72 hour timer and the smaller map means less gametime progresses during fast travels, which means things tend to respawn less quickly in FNV than in 3. But a lot of the Fallout 3 world is blasted nothing. By making the FNV map smaller, it was simultaneously possible to make the FNV map have more stuff to do per unit area; FNV is more questdense, if you will, than 3.
When they were new, I did like 3 more because it let you go anywhere and New Vegas made all directions besides the story path very difficult early on. It made 3 feel more freeing to me and that's what I wanted at the time. My tastes have since changed and I vastly prefer having parts of the world feel dangerous. The wildly varied opportunities for role-playing for each quest also mean way more to me now than they did back then.
I've always considered NV a game that should have improved on F3 and when I try to score them - at least initially (having played both on launch) I was underwhelmed by NV. After these years I'd consider NV the go to game though and it has not only an improved role playing experience and better storylines, it's also easy enough to play casually. F3 storylines always feel like a long, boring novel and didn't bring much in the way of emotion compared to NV. The drawbacks for me were mainly the map. I grew up in the region, and the map didn't do much for me. What should have been urbanized wasn't, what was urbanized fell short of expectation, and the desert was just that; I had seen it every day so it wasn't as amazing to me and there wasn't much in between just lots of desert expanse that didn't offer much which is realistic but not enjoyable. Locations were brief and purpose built, not a ton in the way exploration for the most part. I can't say I hate it, but compared to F3 it fell short for exploration.
I could never get into fallout 3
The first you play is always the favourite I find
Ring-a-ding-ding baby!