Well the world might be graphically outstanding, so much to see and all, but what I was saying was that some of the elements weren't living up to the elements that they excelled at so there mismatches.

What is your thought on the backstory? Is it a spoiler sort of thing?

Seems to me that any place not bombed, or otherwise shot up in the years after the war just doesn't seem right to me. I'd like to see a Paradise Falls type strip, and maybe that's what we will see in FO:NV. I'd like it more weathered...more in decay...more ruined...more desperate.

Can't really tell till we play though.

Don't understand why you want everything to be destroyed and decayed.
What fun is the Fallout Universe if they're never going to move forward?

Well, it IS Obsidian whos working on NV, formely known as Black Isle Studios, and they did the original, so I would assume this will actually have an entertaining story. I agree, Fallout 3 was rather lacking in story, you pretty much talk to three dog, go to rivet city, go find your dad, dad dies, get the G.E.C.K., fight the enclave. It was some very bad and very predictable story telling, the first thing I said when I found my dad was "Yup, hes going to die within the next 15 minutes". Also, the dialouge svcked, and three dog was just annoying, so i killed him.....I couldnt take it anymore....he did NOT sound like a political person that knows no form of government will work forever, and will eventually become corrupt, he sounded more like a black hippie.

And as for scenery, to have the entire place destroyed forever and everything absolutely in total [censored] anarchy just doesnt make any sense. Over time humanity would start to rebuild and restore, also, I was wondering if in NV when I clear an area of super mutants will people move in there? And I dont mean just like 3 wasters that I cant even talk to, Im talking like a hole settlement here.

And one more thing, the people seemed a lot more like robots than people to me, I mean, they were all lacking in personality, or more so there were only several personalities in the game, they would either be a [censored], an [censored], overly friendly, or high strung and up tight. The NPCs in 3 just really didnt feel like individuals to me.

Though I do imagine that NV will share Fallout 1's dark sense of humor, yes it was often just plain dark, but there were those moments when you laughed at first, but after thinking about it you bowed your head and said to yourself. "Damn, this is such a hopeless and depressing situation that its almost funny, in a messed up kind of way at least..." I love that feeling.

Me too.

Man, I agree completely, Fallout 3 wasnt dark, it was just dull, Pretty much everything was gray, and like i said previously, the characters felt more like robots than people and the story was god awfull. And I dislike in FO 3 how everybody in everyplace reacts the same way.....if you dont agree with somebody then this happens "Oh really,.....HAHA!!! PREPARE TO DIE" and if you do agree with somebody then this happens "Oh, I love you so much, could I get your autograph, or maybe I could become your eternal man slave." :glare:

That's kind of how I felt about Fallout 2. You had a few well fleshed out characters, the majority of them just spouted one liner jokes and pop culture non-sequiturs that killed the immersion for me. When you're living in a craphole, it doesn;t make sense for every damn word to be a joke. Fallout 1 and 3 had some of that, but it was much more toned down. In terms of atmosphere and design, 3 felt closer to the original, even if it didn't make much sense for it to. 2's gameplay was deeper but I couldnt stand the way it constantly took the piss.

I still don't know where they hid all the jokes in Fallout 2 for me because I have no idea what you're talking about.
I know it has some silly stuff but it didn't seem to have that many.
Or maybe I just didn't know what they were pop references to so I never understood 'em. :shrug:

I liked characters in the second game better.
Most people in the first name had rather generic names and rather generic dialogue (like they all had one personality: über-serious).
So character in the second game felt more memorable.

Well these days we can spot the non-speaking roles by the title of the character. "Local Priest" in a tavern, or "Peasant" in the village. They're gonna say something about the weather, or make a statement about the army over the hill or whatever. Whereas "Jeff Jefferson" is gonna tell you something you might wanna hear. People running up to "Megaton Settler" after "Megaton Settler" and getting annoyed with their useless comments should probably not click on "Megaton Settler". Voiced or not. lol

These background characters in old games would stand around repeating a three frame jerky animation and have subtitles appearing over their heads. Floating text. "I wish I was somewhere else. *burp*" These days you can walk by the modern versions as they're having a back and forth in audio. Like Jericho in Megaton going, "Hey you! You a Raider spy? You better not be f**cking lying to me." This adds depth in atmosphere in an almost passive way, you as the player are just running on by. Old school could never do that. Directional audio, too. Someone says something and you turn around and look at them, old school with full audio, the character would have to light up or something for you to know who was speaking.

Tenpenny Tower, as much as I dislike the place, could probably work very well as an area in Fallout 1, with Tenpenny residents standing around with their floating text, "Those Ghouls shouldn't be allowed in here." I think we can all imagine a better Tenpenny Tower than the one presented in Fallout 3, if given it in the Fallout 1 style of game.

I remember a section of Planescape Torment that had prosttutes everywhere, with floating text invitations. "Do you like what you see?" Type stuff. The atmosphere was made good by an ambient loop, using the recorded sounds of a rabble of people and indistinct calls from the prosttutes. These days you'd see the prosttutes in detail, different from one to the next, with possibly three or more different voice sets making up their calls for business, actual lines from a script, all as the rain falls around you and the sky above is turning dark and the stars are now blinking overhead, beyond the drifting grey clouds. Sky! lol


Yeah but where's the cut off point for a modern game? I'm reminded of that scene in 28 Days Later, when the small group are spending the night in a corner shop or something, and the guy describes where he was when the Rage broke out. It's a pretty powerful scene because he's talking about a carpet of bodies in an airport or train station, amidst the screams and blood of the infected and uninfected, and trying to hold onto his sister's hand to pull her free from a tide of total chaos. If that had been presented as an actual visual scene, it's debatable as to whether it could have the same impact.

Would the nuclear explosion of The Power of the Atom have been as powerful if it had been presented old school, but using modern tech. So instead of actually seeing the explosion, you see the aftermath, and hear the accounts of witnesses or whatever? Or is it better to see it for yourself? To see the flash, and seconds later feel the impact through great sound and slight visuals, watching in real time as a town is destroyed in a heartbeat? Icewind Dale presented this stuff via a book using Jason Manley’s excellent art work, and with the very good voice talents of the narrator. For a studio to capture the final moments of Icewind Dale now they'd have to put the player in the tower as it collapses, bombard the player with effects and surround him with characters reacting to it. Much like in Fallout 3 with Raven Rock.

They could do it after the fact through dialogue, using characters the player interacts with, offering hearty descriptions a la 28 Days Later to really get it across. Or offer it up in the Fallout 3 slideshow cinematic type things. "And so the Lone Wanderer flipped the switch, and the town of Megaton was erased from the landscape of the Capital Wasteland..." *Musical Bwaam Bwaam, fade to black, resume game*

Seeing that explosion for the first time, engaged as I was, I can't imagine it being presented any other way. It was bloody awesome. One of many visual treats that piled on atmosphere. Skulking around Anchorage Memorial in the dark and seeing a Mirelurk King for the first time, knowing you're not powerful enough to let it see you, as its clicking resonates in the room around you. Having the Dunwich location added to your map during an exchange with a character in a village nearby, and going to have a look, only to pee in your pants as you very slowly make your way thorugh it. lol


I agree, but we're talking atmosphere here. I think Fallout 3 and games like it are brimming with so much content we tend to focus on just a few things and let the rest fall into some mental oblivion when we're away from it. Break it up so we can cope with scope. We just don’t address the literally thousands of little things that make up the whole. It surprises me every time I play it, because I forget how complete it feels. Then something will happen to jar my perception of how complete it is, by standing out as... just... wrong. Like an NPC getting stuck on a tiny piece of landscape, or two textures that meet but don't blend so well. Gotta take a breath and stand off, look at the whole and then appreciate those little things as, little things. If we compensate for them, as I do, to the same degree we did for the classic games, there's nothing to seperate the two (Fallout / Fallout 3) atmospherically, but the younger, modern cousin, Fallout 3, just becomes something leagues apart from its ancestor.

With the Icewind Dale’s and Fallout 1's, you gotta pick on little things and expand on them, and mentally compensate for everything that's missing. Turns out it's quite a lot, and so essentially you're mentally developing the game as you play it, blending tiny aspects of the design, with the sparse text descriptions, and using the portraits for the characters painted in Jason Manley’s excellent style or something, for characters, mentally adding the very voices of the characters you encounter, who you're probably reading more intently precisely because they have no voice.

This is long, I should stop typing. :unsure: lol :blink:

It was just an example, basically it's like that. The game doesn't really offer me anything really mind blowing. There's rarely anything really interesting, just bits and pieces scattered all around. Only time I was really impressed was when I was doing the quest in Tenpenny Tower and the ghouls slaughtered the residents after they were let in. I can't really explain it, but I like to be rewarded after I've done something differently than usually. And you really aren't one to talk, atleast I put 150+ hours and 4 play-throughs to the game trying to find something that would really blow my mind away. How many did you put on original Fallout when you found it's just cumbersome.

You come from completely different backgrounds than I, I appreciate completely different things contentwise. I hope that Obsidian nails it with NV and you'll try different character builds and you'll see what I mean. There's not too many things that are hidden in Fallout 3, in a way there are in original games.

OK, but it's an unfair and misleading example you mentioned at first IMO. That is a much better and explained example of what you mean, and I'm fine with that.

Well, I actually gave 4 reasons (cumbersome being only one of them) in my post and explained each in detail I thought. But I didn't actually track the time, but it was enough to realize the game just wasn't going to be enjoyable for me. As I said, I tried very, very hard to like it and I felt I gave it a fair shake.



It does sound like we have different tastes. No one is right, and no one is wrong - only different! And as they say, variety is the spice of life. I likewise hope they nail it too. If they could capture everything that the old school folks love from the originals with more modern type mechanics and what-not, it might just be the perfect game. I think maybe ALL of us could agree on that! :goodjob:

I say you take the game for what it is, I've never played Fallout 1, or 2, only 3, and if you don't like it, then simply don't buy it, rent it, do something else with your life, but complain about it? Just a waste of time for a game that was already created, and you are definitely not going to have the power to change New Vegas to your desire either.

Think about it, they are going to make billions off of the first release of Fallout New Vegas, just like Blizzard with all of their hype, just like just like Madden and all of their sales, just like each and every large corporate multi-billionaire video game company (forgot to mention bungi, which should not even be regarded as such)

So, just svck it up, buy it on the first day and experience it for yourself, or read the reviews, make your own predictions, possibly rent it, and then make the decision to spend your money on buying it
But none of us can tell the future, and we can only devour what they feed us in their advertisemant of the product.

I personally have bought many of worthless games, but still I bought them, I cannot blame the manufacturer, because they got my money, and tricked me, cannot complain because they will not hear me, I have had numerous problems with many of video games, I've grown much rage, but I realize that I cannot change the past, so I svck it up, if it is a PC game, I allow it to collect dust next to all my old PC games, perhaps give it a second chance on a rainy day, Maybe just give them to someone with a computer and doesn't have any games.

Anyways, I liked fallout 3, I've played fallout: online, and that was my only taste of the old ones, I'm sure they were great, but back then I was too distracted by Starcraft, and Diablo, never even heard of fallout at that time.

Plus, this is the future, we can only consume, what we are given, in this case, Fallout New Vegas, you can be wise, or you can be foolish, or you can gamble your money on the advertisemant, or you can dig further into the forums, and find that there are many different opinions on the matter, I say lets make our own opinions on it, because every one will have a different one, simple as that.

So you're saying us fans should just zip it and never ever complain about the things we don't like in the sequels because our opinions as fans doesn't mean crap to developers

Actually no... Fallout pre-dates BlackIsle, and very few at Obsidian worked on Fallout 2 ~even less on Fallout 1. I too agree that it will probably be a good story though.


Did you play Fallout? I have to somewhat disagree with this, but would also say that the problem of "Megaton Settlers" NPC's comes of the move to FPP ~this would not be a problem if they had stayed closer to the series design. :shrug:

It'd be a great level. Just examine the Cathedral to see how it would be. (It'd be neat to find a FO2 mod in the works that puts in New Vegas).

Is he just talking, or is it cut with flash-backs?
If its just talk, then it could be done as was done with Harold in Fallout 1. If its got Flashbacks, it could still be done ~by adding cut of Flashbacks. :shrug:

You be the judge...


I can't help but consider reactions to the PC actions as part of the atmosphere :shrug:
On this basis alone, I can't hold Fallout3 above Fallout. Fallout3 not only allows you to beat Amata to a pulp with a bat before escaping the vault, but she wakes up and will still help you do it.

Also, try this in Megaton sometime. Stand by the bomb in front of the worshipers, hit the bomb with a melee weapon; burn it if you have a flame thrower, shoot it, maybe hit it some more. They do nothing. You are attacking their god and they do nothing... There's more... Now ready a Stealth-Boy and set one of the worshipers on fire (or shoot them) ~now the whole town is after you... use the stealth-boy... now the whole town has forgotten you all together (literally).

You played Planescape... What happens if you act up in Pen's Printshop?

For my own two cents, I think there's a lot that Fallout 3 did to improve the atmosphere of the Fallout universe. If anyone was going to take the reigns and re-imagine the world with modern technology, I'm glad that it was Bethesda. (Personally) most other Western RPG developers' worlds look relatively empty and lifeless in comparison to the highly-detailed and lived-in worlds that Bethesda can make. Stylistically, Fallout 3 almost looks more "Fallout" than the original ones did.

It's the people in this vibrant and living landscape, however, where I think some of us older fans have some gripes. The whole choice and consequence thing has already made it's rounds through this thread, but that's going to be a big sticking point with a lot of people. I do hope that's something Obsidian can bring to the table, here.

Really, though, I think the whole thing boils down to the Ending Sequence. The in-depth (and highly customized) narrative that plays out after you beat Fallout 1 and 2, are pretty much what I feel best sums up the experience. If you really dig under the hood, I'm sure I'd be surprised at how few things the old games really kept track of, as far as your character and choices went. The important thing was that it created the illusion that every single thing I did in the game had a definite impact - no matter how slight.

That's what I felt was missing from Fallout 3's atmosphere. I felt a lot more... nihilistic in my playthroughs of Fallout 3. I could "be" anyone I wanted to in that game - but no one really cared who I was. Sure, sometimes you're going run into the limits of what can conceivably be coded and scripted. (I can't really say that knocking out Amata at the beginning of the game, and then seeing her instantly forgive you as being all that telling a limitation - considering how many people are really going to care about something that otherwise would need specific coding, not to mention voice acting.)

Anyway, I do hope that Obsidian brings some stuff to the table that Bethesda can learn from. I mean, that's the win/win, here. I'd feel that way even if New Vegas wasn't being made by a team with a connection to the original games - if Bungie was making a Fallout game, I'd hope that there'd be something to be found in their own unique vision that would push the franchise forward in some meaningful way. (To me, that's kind of the point of having another team develop a new game for a franchise - to see what someone else does with it, and thus learn something new; or allow opportunities to take it in places you otherwise wouldn't have thought of on your own. :shrug:)

With these I cannot agree more. Its been apparent to me since way back when I bought Oblivion (2006) because I'd heard this unknown (to me) company had bought (leased) Fallout. I wanted to se what they could do with a native IP, and I was impressed with all of it ~then I left the tutorial, and while I was still impressed, the townsfolk did not measure up to their skill with landscaping and architecture. Fallout 3 is like no other game I own (for about 8 days yet :rolleyes:), yet my best times with it were out in the wastes away from town.

The voice acting could be as simple as running away (or a generic "Friendship Fail" catch-all speech that ends your relationship on a hostile note).

Having lost Amata as an ally the PC is left to escape on their own, possibly with Amata screaming for security guards. I mean... What happens in Fallout if you punch Aradesh?

Wall of text hits you for 5,000,000 hp, you die instantly.

It's just talking. Just a bunch of characters sitting around and the camera stays on him as he speaks. I'm not sure but I think there are some fairly muted sounds of people rioting and screaming and what have you as he tells his story, subtly backing up his memories with a little sound. Given a huge budget the whole thing would probably have been handled in flash backs and there'd have been a huge scene with a few thousand extras, and about a million squidswoth of special effects. As it was it was just an actor, acting, and the writing was good enough to hold, uh, my attention at least. Good scene.

I'm thinking the devs of the original Fallout given enough money, and with greater technology (storage for the, at least the sound files being one requirement that was missing on most peoples rigs (tanks with base units) at the time), would have done more with the original Fallout. I suspect characters would have been fully voiced, instead of having an opening word like, "Wasssap!?" Leading into an all-text dialogue. More characters than the five or six main dudes would have had voices at any rate. There'd probably have been more of those cinematic cutscenes you linked to, the ones that used to sell games without even having "Not Actual Ingame Footage" in the corner of the trailers - so far removed from the actual ingame visuals you often wound up being a bit peeved that you'd bought the game on the strength of some of the screenies taken from the cinematics. lol


Yeah but, I mean, it's a game. Whenever I get a new game I always test it to a degree. What can I do? "Is that breakable?" Yes, "Great." No, "Well it should be." "Can I climb this thing?" Yes, "Great." No, "Should have been able to."

Like uh, Red Dead recently, "I wonder if I can jump from the horse to the train, that'd be cool." *tries* "I can, awesome!" *If couldn't* "They should have added that." Things like uh, Warhammer Online, you can gather a party of heroes and head for the opposition realm's war camp, and get instantly owned by the champions. If they allowed you to run riot the whole thing would break down. You *should* be able to do it because technically the party you've formed can kick ass. But you can't. In the same way you can't navigate certain parts of Fallout 3, like a small mountain of debris that should lead across and into another street, but is blocked by an invisible wall.

Having NPCs not react is one of those things you try and then write off as a *should have*. S'always annoyed me in some RPGs with essentials kicking my ass, just for testing the limits. Can I own everyone here? Yes! If the characters occupying the area weren't immortal. Flaws. Hiding key quest items on Neverwinter Nights, stopping everyone on the server from being able to complete the quest that'll advance the chapter. Wiping out everyone in the town except the essentials, leaving the place void of life, ha ha. Why am I rambling? I dunno. Games have flaws. Once the small test is completed and yields a negative, you ignore it and move on as if you never tried and always knew it wasn't possible. You don't bash any more crates, or attempt to jump from a horse to a train, you don't draw a weapon in a town or attempt to attack an enemy players safe zone.

If everyone in Megaton turned hostile and killed you outright for attacking the nuke, as with Warhammer and the WCs, or Neverwinter and a room full of essentials, or whatever. Killing you instantly, coded to not even give you a chance at getting out of there alive, then you'd reload and walk around knowing not to do that. No reaction is almost the same as that. There's no point in attacking the bomb because "you'll get killed" /or/ "nothing happens". Same. Why bother?

I think for Fallout 3 a little effort was put into not ruining a players' experience outright by offering things like, "Put your weapons away and the locals may become friendly again." Rather than, "Shoot someone and the whole place will go ballistic, be warned, entire towns will own you no matter what your skill level." Not punishing the players testing boundaries too much, or those making simple mistakes. I know I've blown one or two heads off by accident in FO3. *shifty eyes*

This is true as far as I know they wanted to do more voiced characters (Given the money, and time, they might seriously have allowed the PC to survive a dip, and become a supermutant... and all that entails, dialog-wise).

But Fallout's conversations were not like that, and I certainly don't fault any game for using cutscenes instead of the engine... The results usually far superior and the there are no downsides IMO.

Here is a sample of Fallout dialog with a principle character that actually has something pertinent to say (as opposed to some Megaton Settler)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW8TNY9W_2E
There were 21 heads in Fallout and 13 in Fallout 2 (curious eh?)

If it was a scripted kill, it would go against Fallout's double edge nature. In Fallout, you mess with something that someone cares about, they'll warn you off or attack you for being a thief. In FO3 its similar, but they get amnesia rather quick and forget their grudges. You can accidentally hit Elder Lyons and he will forget (One can roleplay "forgive & forget", but if a guest in your house shoots you ~even accidentally, most would want the to leave ~if they even let them).

Thats a pretty good example of what made the game work, that level of dialogue is so far beyond what we got in fallout 3 its shocking.

I agree with you Turns The Page. FO:2 was the worst for me. Way too silly.

Oh man. That's Kresselack's voice from Icewind Dale. Ha ha! I'd know it anywhere. S'like that old Brit politician Tony Benn, only without the shhhlurring. Yeah, that's done well.


Yeah but if they had long term memories with that stuff it'd be like stealing the quest items in Neverwinter, you'd never get to complete the quests. Only, instead of an item it'd be locked dialogue. Like that Scribe in Arlington Library, what's her name? I remember having a Neutral character being rude to her, and then later I returned with the same character with fifty-odd pre-war books to sell. To my surprise she was greeted with, "Didn't I tell you go away!" Now I mean, logic says code in a variable or something that checks my character for pre-war books, before having the character telling her outright to go away, no matter what their first meeting went like. Why would a Scribe scouring the Wasteland for pre-war literature, turn away a character carrying fifty books? lol I was stuck with fifty-odd books. Heh ha.

That's the Elder Lyons thing if done the way you wanted. You'd shoot him, and your game would effectively end, or the devs would have to write in a seperate character to complete certain sections, a mediator betwen you and Lyons, maybe a Scribe or something, shoot that guy too and then what? Trust the devs have an endless cycle of spawning characters to cover the player's trigger happy sensibility, or just have Lyons forget and let the game go on? Heh. Even an evil "shot Lyons" equivelant to the quest, and not a mediator character, if you shot him and he didn't forget your game would end. Better to ignore the consequences of shooting someone, reset after a few days and let the game go on. :unsure:

Wow hehe perhaps I should should have put a few more points in INT for this thread got some brainy people here. I have played every fallout game to date and really enjoyed my time with every one of them so far and am betting it will continue.. I think you might be limiting yourself a bit by comparing to something else instead of just enjoying the game in front of you. I look at it a bit like related stories but from difrrent story tellers with there own take on it. Every one of them had there bright spots (well That Brotherhood of steel was a bit rougher than most but still as a whole an ok game)

Voiced by the late [great] http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0419645/ (AKA Megabyte ).

Fallout is like FO:NV in that there is only one NPC that cannot be killed and still complete the game.... FO:NV is doing it ~FO3 could have. Its my assumption (only that), that the Amata/Lyons examples won't happen in FO:NV (I'm going to guess that you can't even attack Mr. House).

My take on what you described is that if you killed Lyons, then that would be your end game as far as the Brotherhood was concerned :shrug: (and its the same as if you had attacked Maxon in the BOS bunker in FO1 ~Which you can). What it gets you is him not lending you aid later, and losing the BOS as an ally, but you can still complete the game.