I am not postil this to troll,but FNV for me is nowhere as good as the others,because in F1,you kill the master of a super mutant army,in F2 you destroy an oil rig full of US government remnants,in New Vegas all your character can be is a minion to the factions that are trying to take over the Dam/NV city or take it for youself...if feels so empty compared to the epicness of the originals.

Anyone else got this impression or is it just me?

No, I didn't. I loved the New Vegas storyline.

You could make the argument that in Fallout 1 you were just the minion of your Vault (who exiles you at the end), whereas in New Vegas you got to choose sides before you went out and crushed somebody's army (and you even had the opportunity to beat up to 3 whole armies). You even had the opportunity to install yourself as ruler.

You could also make the argument that in Fallout 2 you were just the lacky of your Tribe. Again: In New Vegas, you got to pick your sides. While in FO2 you could blow an entire oil rig full of Enclave, you can still collapse a bunker full of power-armored militants in New Vegas and/or a robot army.

I seriously think you're looking at all this through nostalgia goggles.

I actually like the aspect of you are NOT the "hero of the world". You are just some guy, caught up in events. The game deals far better with choices and consequences than 3, skills are more meaningful, and you have to pay attention to where you put points in the early game. There is more depth, intrigue, and not-so-obvious quests, I think it is a much better game than three.

But being a minion from the vault or the tribe actually makes sense,but in FNV you do not have any reason to side with any faction at all,you begin neutral and just choose to help one of them randomnly.

Randomly? Well, either that or you play a character with a personality and choose a side based upon what your character would do.

In Fallout 1 you could side with the Master.

But I understand your point of view.

Saving or destroying the world is what role playing is about.

I noticed FO3 story has been conspicuously left out. This is not a bad thing.

I generally don't argue at length over something as heavily subjective as this. You don't like the New Vegas storyline - that's tough luck. I liked all the Fallout storylines.

But I can't let this one go: You choose one to help randomly? As in, you just flipped a coin or rolled a die, and opted to help one of the three (or four) major factions? That doesn't sound like a problem with the game's storyline, my friend. I don't know about you, but I listened to what everyone else had to say in the game and made up my own mind what I wanted to do.

The fact is that it looks like the NCR is the obvious way to go because they are everywhere,and becoming their enemy would make 75% of the locations hostile,so i have to choose randomly.Think about it,would you side with a misterious man who does not even show his face to you,an shady robot who would do anything for anyone,or a bloodthirsty slaver?

And btw,whats wrong with being the hero of the world?Ain't that what role playing is all about?

You're still not making sense to me. Yes, NCR owns most of the locations but that would be a reason to side with the NCR as opposed to randomly.
Which, by the way, I didn't side with them on my initial playthrough and things still turned out pretty much the way I wanted them to. I'm siding with Caeser's Legion my second playthrough because things are just that darn interesting.


Did you listen to what he had to say and what his motivations were? If you did he makes a pretty damn compelling argument to work for him.


That's what I did and New Vegas turned out pretty much the way I wanted it to in the end.


You know you have the option to be evil if you want to, right? At least in New Vegas, you can see through that choice all the way to the end, and you even get an epilogue. In Fallout 1, the moment you sided with the Master, it was game over.

The main differences are the motivation:

In fallout you were trying to save your friends and family from certain death and would later attempt the same for the entire wasteland because there was nothing to stop the mutants from killing everyone.

In fallout 2 you were trying to save your tribe from their own inabilty to migrate to a better spot. Then the enclave got them and it was up to you to rescue your tribe.

In fallout 3 you were kicked out of your home with only your father's name to go on and once your found him the enclave killed him and took his life's work then you went on a roaring rampage of revenge.

In fallout NV you wake up after being shot in the head and mugged, you then decide to travel around the whole mojave looking for the guy and once you find him he either escapes forcing you back to step one or you kill him and get offered a fancy suite. Then you decide to be the hero of the mojave and wipe out an entire army of ncr/securitrons/legionairres just because.

At no point in NV was there a reason to track Benny down any more than the reason to chase down everyone in the wasteland who manages to shoot you (everyone). If you think revenge is a good enough motive to further risk your life then there is still absoultely no reason to do anything with the chip other than hand it to mr house/the ncr/ceasar and start a new life as a brahmin rancher since Hoover Dam is at a stand still anyway.

You're right. But technically, you could just ignore Benny and the whole war going on if you feel that's what you would do.

Your decision to become the hero of the Mojave isn't spelled out for you by the story, granted, but that's something you're expected to decide for yourself. Why DID you become the hero of the Mojave? Your reasons are your own.

Would you have preferred the game provide a motivation FOR you? Like for example, start you off as an NCR officer? Or a Legionary? Or an android built by House? Wouldn't that be a little ham-fisted?

Follow Victor into the lucky 38 for the first time. Mr house tells you the extended conflict is destroying the dam and eventually it will collapse plunging Vegas into anarchy. A decisive battle must be made and he wants you to give his securitrons the strength to make it happen. Instead you can head over to the ncr/legion and the game continues normally. Makes sense for his character, makes sense for the plot and makes sense since the dam is hundreds of years old. But I only realised this logic when a B-52 bomber flew overhead and bombed the dam just to kill a few guys.

.......I don't follow? :confused:

You wanted a reason for the player to want to be involved in the second half of the game without it being hamhanded. The dam will burst if the conflict isn't resolved. Simple and believable reason.

And yes I do want the game to provide a reason for me to do something otherwise I expect Ron Perlman to narrate how I drank from toilets, threw myself off tall cliffs and murdered everyone for their clothes.

True dat.

But anyways I'm not as knowledgable as many fallout fans out there so keep in mind I have only played fallout 3 and New Vegas.

I feel like Fallout 3 gave me to much of a background to work with. Born in a vault, mom died, raised by dad while growing up in the vault, dad leaving vault (hell when I first played it I really did not care that he left I mean why should I), and a few other things someone set you on a path on who your character is. And yes I have taken in mind that you got to play your character as a child making decisions and whatnot. (By the way not complaining about fallout 3 , I absolutely loved it)


Now in FNV you are some courier that got shot in the head. That's it. I guess I like the fact I have more roleplaying options in FNV to keep me interested. I guess you could have been whoever you wanted to be before you were shot in the head. Hell maybe you aren't even a courier. Maybe someone reversed pickpocketed that damn chip on to you because that person was about to get caught themselves. Unless I missed someone inform you of your past, you typically start out as a blank slate.


I understand why people compare the games (especially Fo3 and FNV) but the more I play new vegas the more I take it as a whole new game.

Pointing the player in a direction and saying "Do that" isn't a story, it's plot railing. I don't know why you couldn't decide that a slaver army threatening to conquer your home isn't enough motivation for you to decide "hey, I'd better stop these guys". You're the one who is supposed to be figuring out your character's motivations. Maybe he/she thinks a job as a Courier doesn't pay well enough after getting shot in the head and figures it's time to make something of him/herself by taking Mr. House up on his offer. Maybe he/she is disgusted by the NCR's corruption and wants to support the Legion because they would purify the failed state.

Sure you have a motivation to leave your home in other Fallouts, but you could either pick it up or leave it in the other games as well. Why should I rescue the primitive tribe I grew up in? I'd rather stay with my boys in New Reno and rule the town. Why chase my father after he ditched me? Screw him, I've been under his thumb long enough and now I'm doing my own thing. Some things pushed the player towards a confrontation such as the Master's army or the Enclave's plan to eradicate all humans whose DNA didn't match pre-war American DNA close enough but there was nothing truly compelling most characters to pursue a path unless it was in their motivation to Save the Village/Vault or what-not.

Really? You are Courier #6. You agreed to deliver that package. Benny shot you in the head, dumped you in a shallow grave, and stole that package. If nothing else, you have keeping your word, pride in your work, revenge, wanting your paycheck (that you won't get until you deliver that package), and wanting to still have a job.

I'd hunt the cretin down just for trying to make me break my word.

Plus, have you looked at that suit he's wearing? He deserves to be shot.

This is a reason, yes. But it's not a given everyone would envision their character reacting in this way. Some people might just want to run and hide until they're sure no one cares about them anymore, but that's not much of a game.

To put it another way, in the other Fallouts, you begin adventuring because you don't have a choice. You get forced from your home one way or another, so you can either sit down and die or start walking. In this one, being a courier familiar with the surroundings doesn't allow for that clean break with the pre-story that kickstarts the main character's adventuring career, but nothing substantial takes its place. Ttracking down Benny is a long-term goal, just like finding the water chip or the GECK, and like the other Fallouts, you can ignore that goal if you choose. But if you do, there isn't anything to propel your character forward at the start, that would universally compel any character to begin exploring the Wasteland. It would be quite logical for many characters to say the hell with it and set up shop as a Bighorn rancher in Goodsprings.

Of course, that's not an option. In this way it breaks the cardinal rule of storytelling- doing something that reminds your player (or reader or viewer) that this is a game (or book or movie) and pulls them away from simply experiencing the story being told. This ends up weakening the main character. You may think the MC is fine, and I won't argue that point; all I'm saying is that, no matter how good you think the MC's story is, if they had offered a compelling and immediate reason for adventuring, the character and the experience would have been stronger.

You're entitled to your opinion but I'm willing to bet there are just as many fans out there that appreciate that New Vegas starts your character out as blank a slate as possible so that roleplayers can determine their own motivations.

Lots of good points are raised in this thread by both sides of the debate. However I feel that an important point is being missed, it wasn't that New Vegas had a bad storyline, its that there was no point in telling it. The first time I played Fallout 3, it took me about 30 hours to see where the story was heading, where all the plot points were going to converge. In New Vegas, in the first hour of gameplay you know exactly how the story is going to end, with you being victorious at the upcoming Hoover Dam battle. You know this because every NPC in the game talks about the upcoming battle at the dam and how its going to decide which faction has dominion over the wasteland and strip. By the second or third hour you can figure out how every possible ending will take place. Kind of kills any suspense or interest.

I found NV excellent because for the first time, you can decide how your character is. You are the Courier, but what goes before it? and what's better is there is no limit of age, where as in all the previous Fallout you are always a teenager and never get to grow up.

I for one doesn't seek revenge, simply cruise along the roads as now free from my old job. In fact, I start getting a feel that my character lost most memory as you have options to ask about what is going on across Coronado.

NCR and the Legion are big players at the post-war east America, and Hoover Dam is surely just as good as an Oil rig.

You consider 35 year old to be a teenager?

No Fallout game has been "about the story", it's always been about how you can change the wasteland. Fallout 1 or 2 gave me absolutely no reason to care about the people I'm trying to save. I could've just as easily settled in the Hub or someplace like that. Much of the motivation is left up to the player and you have to "accept" the most basic of tasks even though you don't care about them, because that's "the gateway" to the wasteland. I certainly don't think it's a huge stretch for a player to want to either A) get revenge from Benny or B) just look for answer or C) look him up because of professionalism, you were hired to do a job which you failed. Sure, I can't decide I want to be a careful guy who gets the hell out of there. But like I said, every story has its framework that the player will need to find some initial motivation to, well... to play the damn game!

Hell, in many ways, I consider New Vegas to be the best story in the series. Why? Because I choose who I will align with. Most games would've instantly put the Legion as the bad guys ala the Enclave, the ones who can't be reasoned with, the ones you can't work with. And while the actual main missions don't differ hugely, the fact that the game allows you that freedom to choose who you support is something that more games should embrace instead of trying to push a "single bad guy" on you.

This is great news! I'm still a teenager if this is true!

Wait... that's not actually a GOOD thing... [censored].

FNV story, huh? I like the main story about as much as I like the main story in most RPGs I play - which is to say, I don't think it's fantastic. But what qualifies as a "good" story? Subjective. And I think other stories in FNV are better than the main one. Boone's story. Cass' story. The story of the Boomers. Shorter, but better.