That's a false comparison there. You cannot affect the story of a book, but you can on a game. If the story of a game want's me to join and work with the "messengers of good" and doesn't give any choice otherwise, why does it allow me to act against those "goody two shoes" premises without consequences - that just leads to a disjointed and partly illogical storyexperience?



I had a completely opposite experience. I felt much more connected to the characters of NV straight from the beginning, as most of them didn't seem like carved from oak with a spoon. Whereas the "shiny objects" (what ever that means) didn't interest me at all, as they were no different than those of Fallout 3 which I had already seen and experienced.

Maybe you should stay away from RPGs....

I dont think people realize that Bethsheda took on the fall out series because of the similarities of it to its own games, open endless, freedom of movement ect. One of the big wigs in Beth I think was an admirer of fall out games. Now the stories in Beth are superb I dont see how people can rib on that. Bethseda are the masters of stories their elderscrolls series is literally full of books you can read in game, most of them are pretty good too. Yes fall out and their other games there story lines are epic I believe the typical gamer would rather be a part of something epic then something mediocre and irrelevant. To me that’s a large part of playing games.

Now after reading many comments I see maybe a lot of old fans of the fall out games comparing NV to the first 2 and are apparently happy with what they got what ever more or less that is. I cannot comment of NV as game because I honestly have never played it but im am curious about it and read a lot of it here. I am at least honest that I havent played it not unlike some people who played NV and are shamelessly making up stories about their experiences in fo3 or other beths games. When I see comments about fo3 stories being awful, no choices, bad characters ect. I have to wonder if they even played the same game they are trashing. I have played Fo1-2 so I can compare that with fo3, and I am quite happy with them all. Every game was an improvement upon the last. I cant say how NV fits in, it may end up like being like what fall out tactics was to the first 2 games. Neat offshoot but not part of the main games. Hopefully bethsheda will keep Fall out 4 and up in house.

thats my 3 cents

In my opinion several things in Fallout 3 didnt make much sense. But that doesnt mean I rate FNV higher.

Fallout 3 had a certain "X factor" to it. I cant describe or put my finger on what it is, but I immidiately got drawn into the gameworld regardless of the issues it had. Although Ive had hundreds of hours of fun with FNV, I did not feel the same way about it. Maybe that is because I played Fallout 3 so much. Perhaps it took some of the novelty away from FNV. A sense of 'been there seen that'. You know?

Why do people say that FNV is more linear than FO3? Its not.

FO3 raildroaded my down one yellowbrick road. I wanted to help the Enclave take over the purifier, but I could not.

Yes I can appreciate the "game and let game" concept, but the OP came in swinging with VERY strong opinions about Fallout 3 and Fallout NV. Of course he has the right to hold these opinions, but when he takes them to a public forum and airs them out he opens himself up to having his opinions countered by others.

Basically it seems like you're saying we can't counter the OP's opinions with the same intensity he uses.

I see it differently. Obviously someone at Bethesda was interested in Fallout as otherwise they wouldn't have bought it, but the similiarities you mention are the beginning and the end of it. Bethesda bought the franchise and made it similiar to their own series. It proved out to be financially profitable, sure, but at the same time it is an example of lack of talent or lack of willingness (either way, the result is the same) to innovate their own formulas and try out something new with something new. What they now have, is two franchises that play out exactly alike at their core with only superficial differences - which, in my humble opinion, is a terrible waste of potential, given that at their very core both franchises are (or were, in this case) fundamentally different, and an exhibition of either lazyness or lack of talent or both.

Bethesda has its strongpoints as a developer, but it seems that trying out something new with focus on something else than what they've been doing since the beginning isn't one of them.

I' was saying you can counter them in a polite and civil way. Namecalling isn't polite or civil. If you go back and read the post I responded to in the first place you will note there was flaming and namecalling and I cautioned about it. Be civil in your disagreements...that's all and if he doesn't like it as much, well...that's no skin off our backs I'm still going to play this game for a very long time.

My favorite was always: kill self



I'm also completely at loss as to how can anybody say something like that. The MQ alone has 4 different main paths, and most of the quests in it (and I'm still talking about the MQ alone) could be done in often as many as 4 or 5 alternate ways as well. To say something like FNV is more linear than FO3 is so obviously far from the truth I have a hard time convincing myself they're not just trolling.

So...you're complaining that there are factions in the game that you cant become the leader of or whatever? Also, you dont work for the Kings for kicks and giggles, you're doing it to earn a favor, one of them to join the Kings.

To be honest, I'd rather have 'filler' than an empty world.

Fallout 3 has three factions.

1. BoS
2.Enclave
3. Raiders

Those are THE major factions you will encounter in the game (Settlements excluded). And 2 of them serve as target dummies. While I am not berating Fallout 3, Fallout:New Vegas adds alot more life to the world than Fallout 3 did. Yes Fallout 3 was a great exploration game, but the factions could have been alot better in there if you ask me. :rolleyes:

Wow... seriously? I see people complaining about the amount of choices in New Vegas? Really? While I liked FO3, in it's own-heavily-modded-way, I would never trade NV for something so simplistic. Like F3 and it's 3 2 main factions and blatant do-gooder/stoopid ebil storyline.

If I wanted a game solely for dungeon crawling, loot grinding and powergaming, I would probably get Diablo. :hubbahubba:

Can you list a few of those, besides the endless part (as Fallout ended as soon as the conditions were met). I came late to the party, and had never heard of Bethesda until I saw that they had leased the Fallout rights. However it was my understanding that the lion's share of the books in Oblivion were taken from Morrowind, and that certain key persons from Morrowind were no longer with the company.

The first similarity I picked up on was the fact that the engines used in Fallout 1 and Oblivion (though technically unrelated) had gameplay similarities that would make recreating the Fallout gameplay not too hard in Bethesda's engine. I was really looking forward to this too. I bought Oblivion and looked closely at how it played, and saw many points where the games looked cosmetically different, but behaved very similar. I honestly (truly, and seriously) expected a Post Apocalyptic Fallout game with the established mechanics of the series, improved to take advantage of the 3D engine ~Basically what I later saw in the Witcher, but with different combat and setting. It never occurred to me that anyone would continue the series as a RPG-shooter.

I have played all of the Fallouts and I consider each to have followed a linear path downward from the previous with a mild upturn at the end with New Vegas (though still far from recovered). Fallout 3 was beautiful. It really REALLY looked the part of a Fallout masterpiece ~and often made no sense to me at all, and looked to be set before Fallout, but took place centuries later. IMO Megaton would have been an absolutely great location, had they removed it from the early locations you encounter and set it squarely on top of (and as part of) the underworld. As it is though, I find it mildly insulting ~not personally, but no one in the previous games was http://img237.imageshack.us/i/leavingmegatonsa2.swf/. It was the wrong atmosphere for the series IMO right from the start, and [for me] it tainted the rest of the game. It was not something that I can understand being derived from Fallout as they said they had done. :shrug:

Had I been part of the team that made New Vegas , FO:NV is the game that I would have pushed for after learning that we would have to base it on Fallout 3. I am very content with FO:NV ~but its still not what I would have preferred.

**In hindsight, that game would have [essentially] been FO:NV set closer to the canyon. with a camera system much like the Witcher, and with a travel system much like the originals that allowed you to travel a week or two between cities (on foot), or driving in a crafted or repaired vehicle (think Halo Wart Hog), or as a http://img211.imageshack.us/i/maptc4.swf/ like Indiana Jones (and the original games). Each would have risks and different odds of getting ambushed; and the expanse between the major locations would be filled with procedural ruins and a few undocumented major locations along with old style special encounters and minor oddities. I would have freely abandoned TES design objectives that clash with the new IP, and supported variable body styles (and weight) and missing limbs on healthy NPC's (On PC's too in that game's HC mode )

Because it was not this... you could call it a disappointment (from my point of view)... but its still a great improvement over FO3 in my opinion of what actually matters in the games.

No. In fact if you read through the thread you'll see that I was arguing that books and RPGs aren't the same thing.

I hate the old "choose your adventure" books because they were almost never done well, not because it's a bad concept.

The original D&D player's manual shipped with a choose your own style solo adventure.

Some of those books were awful, and some were awe-full.

**but in this area, I would concede that "nostalgia goggles" might really be tinting the past.

In essence, D&D was invented so you can have you own version of LOTR adventure.

I played Fallout 3 extensively and was impressed at the time with the game. Now that I've played Fallout: New Vegas, I've realized that Fallout 3 had great potential but failed to capitalize on it. Instead they went with a more haphazard and illogical approach to telling the story and setting the motivation. I really didn't care about the main quest at all. Granted, there were some pretty cool moments like the first Super Mutant Behemoth encounter, which no other encounter lived up to sadly but that was it. Other things just made no sense at all. For instance: If some unknown teenager with barely a working knowledge of explosives can disable a nuclear weapon, why hasn't someone in the town just taken some Mentats and taken care of it already?

Fallout 3 was great, until it had something similar to compare it to. I still think it's a good game but it just can't rival it's sequel in any significant way.

And that's coming from someone who has played and enjoyed both Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas.

I've only just got round to playing FNV, only about 10 hrs into it.

I've been rescued from death by a robot, I'm not sure why, big mystery there.

Another courier saw my name underneath theirs and as soon as they read my name, they didn't want to deliver the package etc etc etc

There's a couple of mysteries for me straight away.



I had Morrowind on the PC, endless bugs, endless ctd, took weeks if not months to get it running smoothly.

I had Oblivion on the PC, exactly the same thing (I like many others used 3rd party patches to fix things)

Fallout 3 was less buggy on the PC for me, but still had problems.

Also have Fallout 3 on the PS3, not experianced as many bugs as a lot of others, but did disable all my autosaves in the options before I started.

You can count on two things with any game from Bethesda.

1) It will be buggy on release and will take weeks to be fixed
2) It's worth the hassle ion the end as they're brillient games.

I only hope they've fixed the save bug on FNV

So far I'm really enjoying myself. But I'm taking my time, doing side quests etc.

I suspect (could be wrong, often am) that part of the reason people aren't as thrilled with FNV is that (I presume) it's exactly the same engine as FO3, after starting numerous characters in Oblivion and FO3, creating the character does feel sort of more of the same and in a way the game feels more like an expansion of FO3 than a whole new game.

It also depends how people play the game. Whether they invest time in making healing food/ammo etc or just play the main story as quick as possible.

For me, I'm more than happy at the moment and am pleased with my purchase.

So far the only letdown (presuming I haven't done something wrong or missed something) was when I offered to fix a radio and that seemed to be it, no having to go to the radio, getting a part etc.

The biggest gripe I have with them is their stupid deals with MS. No PS3 owner is suddenly going to sell their system and get a 360, a lot have both anyway. All it does is annoy us. I only buy 360 games when they're not available on the PS3 and if I have to wait 6 months for DLC then I will wait on my PS3, while at the same time feeling let down by Bethesda. If they're going to release a game simultaniously on all consoles, then they should do so with the DLC. I appreciate they're a business and MS probably bunged them a few thousand for doing so, but long term I'm simply thinking that next time, maybe I'll wait to see if the DLC is going to be released before I part with my cash. By the time it is finally released, I should be able to pick the game up 2nd hand dirt cheap. End result, Beth looses out.

Medieval Fantasy= It's someones take on Tolkiens work ?

Tolkien is one of the respected Medieval themed writers yes, but I fail to see how something with knights and magic and orcs automatically meaning its someones wanna be LOTR fantasy.

Tolkien viewed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_R%C3%BCcker_Eddison as, "the finest writer of invented worlds that I have read".

^{*[citation needed]}

****Correction (found the thing finally):
The exact quote is "The greatest and most convincing writer of invented worlds that I have read", and a second Tolkien quote is, " [Eddison's work embodies] Undiminished power and felicity of expression."

No, they aren't. A master of stories could craft a story that makes internal sense and doesn't have plot holes large enough to fit an elephant in.



Making up stories? An amusing accusation considering I have been citing examples of specific nitpicks from the game. I have played Fallout 3, and there are no choices in the main quest that actually effect anything* in the ending. The story is awful, and made worse by the fact that you have no control over the direction it takes. They railroad you on a specific story and can't even make that specific, forced plot make sense. As for characters, the ones with more than a single dimension can be counted on one hand.

Typically, stories give characters something called 'character development', where we come to understand the outlook and motivation of a character. Fallout 3 was lacking in this department. Severely.

*The FEV isn't a choice. No character that could have actually gotten to that point in the story would actually use the FEV unless he suffered brain damage from too many laser shots to the head. There is no sane motivation for even an evil character to follow through with the FEV.

I dont understand your point. Can you explain what you're saying?

It's not their loss if they don't like it.

Apart from the whole discussion about fallout 3>new vegas or new vegas>fallout3. I was always dissapointed the worlds weren't really post-apocalyptic. Never did I feel like there was actually something dangerous out there, neither in fallout 3 or new vegas. Sure there's deathclaws, but that's more something like ooh strong enemy. It's not really something to be afraid of. I always think STALKER did a way better job of making a post apocalyptic world, but I guess I should just go play that game if that is what I want :sadvaultboy:.

Sorry for being off topic and not contributing to the on going discussion, I just felt like adding this.

I agree with you to an extent OP.
All the factions of the game do have a dead end, which is incredibly disappointing.
Why go through everything all over again to *gasp* Change the end slides
Ignore a large majority of the posters, they're don't represent the fanbase as a whole, and taking this kind of post elsewhere will prove it.
Thankfully, Bethesda will be back in control over FO4 and we will get a captivating storyline, rather than the boring, pointless-choice filled mess that was NV.

Does NV ending top the Optimus Prime parody that tosses nuclear grenades and shoots lasers out his eyes storming through a bunch of power armor wearing bad guys, also shouting anti communist slogans.
Come on people you have to admit that was cool the first time!

I'm agreeing


Top it? I never got that far in the game, but I've nothing against it, and can even see it as loosely fitting... but IMO it tears a tangent away from the world setting of the series, and into Bethesda's re-envisioning of the setting. Same as Black Isle did with FO2.