Fallout: New Vegas - Fall 2010

Scratched wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Either way, I think the larger issue with New Vegas was that winning the battle would have resulted in a pretty big shift in terms of what would happen to the world. If you won it for the Legion (which I think might make you a jerk, just saying ;)), 90% of the map should be changing from NCR to Legion control.

I think Obsidian said they wanted to handle the ending like that, so you see what happens afterwards, but like many things they were cut short. At least they do give you a nice notice of the point of no return.

The issue I was thinking of was more a matter of quest givers and their positioning. No point in going back to try to do an NCR quest at the solar plant if the Legion rolls over the place. Though I guess they could ask you to shut it all down.

Demosthenes wrote:
gore wrote:

I mentioned this in the "confessions" thread but I specifically never finished this game because I didn't want it to ever end. I got to a point in the game that seemed like it was at (or very close to) the "point of no return," and I just quit.

There's something about having the option for that finality, but instead just walking away, that I find really compelling. I'm not sure FO3 was actually well served by having an endless mode after Broken Steel.

So... you didn't like that New Vegas had that "end" point. But... you didn't think 3 having the ending lead to unlimited wandering worked either? I'm confused. :D

No. I like the fact that FO:NV has that finality, but I was happy to exercise the option to simply walk away from the entire conflict and move on without seeing it through. It just seemed like the right thing to do. Screw all those jerks, I'm outa there.

Broken Steel always felt broken, like some kind of taped on extension to the game. The ending, which was supposed to be so climatic in FO3, was revealed to have little real effect on the world when you were able to continue playing the game. It took a bad ending and made it an anticlimax. I think FO3 just kind of broke apart towards the end of the main story line, regardless of which version you opted for.

It didn't help that BS broke the already screwed up FO3 power curve even more.

Demosthenes wrote:

My favorite time with the original ending was when I had Fawkes the Supermutant with me and he refused to go into the chamber to save us both with his radiation immune body. That was hilariously great. :(

Yeah, I had the same ending. So ham-fisted and poorly written. I think they wanted to have the Big Sacrifice moment that disaster movies always have (think Bruce Willis in Armageddon), but realized too late they'd written themselves into a corner with some of the companions.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

My favorite time with the original ending was when I had Fawkes the Supermutant with me and he refused to go into the chamber to save us both with his radiation immune body. That was hilariously great. :(

Yeah, I had the same ending. So ham-fisted and poorly written. I think they wanted to have the Big Sacrifice moment that disaster movies always have (think Bruce Willis in Armageddon), but realized too late they'd written themselves into a corner with some of the companions.

Indeed. The ending ruined, for me, an otherwise really great game. But I never got any DLC or have ever picked it back up because that ending made me angry.

tboon wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

My favorite time with the original ending was when I had Fawkes the Supermutant with me and he refused to go into the chamber to save us both with his radiation immune body. That was hilariously great. :(

Yeah, I had the same ending. So ham-fisted and poorly written. I think they wanted to have the Big Sacrifice moment that disaster movies always have (think Bruce Willis in Armageddon), but realized too late they'd written themselves into a corner with some of the companions.

Indeed. The ending ruined, for me, an otherwise really great game. But I never got any DLC or have ever picked it back up because that ending made me angry.

I would say that the DLCs were probably my favorite parts of that game. Point Lookout was so much fun. Operation Anchorage was kind of a slog, but the rewards (that stealth suit) were a lot of fun to play with back in the Capital Wasteland. Mothership Zeta was hilarious for its tapes and the nice 50s aesthetic to the aliens. Broken Steal at least gave me the option to send Fawkes in and save us both and get on with our lives.

tboon wrote:

Indeed. The ending ruined, for me, an otherwise really great game. But I never got any DLC or have ever picked it back up because that ending made me angry.

Yeah, completely soured me. For me, it's not even a serious question on whether NV was better than FO3. Also I found my dad completely by random, without following the storyline. Needless to say, I was confused. They didn't seem to take into account that you might find his location simply by wandering in the wastes.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
tboon wrote:

Indeed. The ending ruined, for me, an otherwise really great game. But I never got any DLC or have ever picked it back up because that ending made me angry.

Yeah, completely soured me. For me, it's not even a serious question on whether NV was better than FO3. Also I found my dad completely by random, without following the storyline. Needless to say, I was confused. They didn't seem to take into account that you might find his location simply by wandering in the wastes.

From my perspective FO:NV is just a better game, almost universally. There are two things I feel FO:3 was a little better at:

- FO:NV was a little jankier around the edges at release (but it's rock solid for me now, and FO3 had its own share of technical issues too)

- FO3's introductory segment, where you grow up in the vault and then are suddenly thrown into the wasteland, was exceptionally powerful for me.

Now, that said, I purchased and played all the FO3 DLC except for Zeta, and I've not yet played the DLC for FO:NV. While I did enjoy the FO3 DLC as standalone chunks, in the context of an overall play through the perks/levels/items you got from them added up to make you Supreme God of everything and moved the balance beyond "you know, this is kind of broken" to "why even bother?"

I suspect FO:NV may fare better if you play through its DLC, because on the highest setting (Hardcore / V. Hard, I think?) I was still finding challenges in the vanilla game. Maybe I'll get around to that DLC, some day...

gore wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
tboon wrote:

Indeed. The ending ruined, for me, an otherwise really great game. But I never got any DLC or have ever picked it back up because that ending made me angry.

Yeah, completely soured me. For me, it's not even a serious question on whether NV was better than FO3. Also I found my dad completely by random, without following the storyline. Needless to say, I was confused. They didn't seem to take into account that you might find his location simply by wandering in the wastes.

From my perspective FO:NV is just a better game, almost universally. There are two things I feel FO:3 was a little better at:

- FO:NV was a little jankier around the edges at release (but it's rock solid for me now, and FO3 had its own share of technical issues too)

- FO3's introductory segment, where you grow up in the vault and then are suddenly thrown into the wasteland, was exceptionally powerful for me.

Now, that said, I purchased and played all the FO3 DLC except for Zeta, and I've not yet played the DLC for FO:NV. While I did enjoy the FO3 DLC as standalone chunks, in the context of an overall play through the perks/levels/items you got from them added up to make you Supreme God of everything and moved the balance beyond "you know, this is kind of broken" to "why even bother?"

I suspect FO:NV may fare better if you play through its DLC, because on the highest setting (Hardcore / V. Hard, I think?) I was still finding challenges in the vanilla game. Maybe I'll get around to that DLC, some day...

They're hit or miss, to me. Old World Blues is the only one I would emphatically suggest. The rest are ok ish, kind of good.

Demosthenes wrote:
Scratched wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Either way, I think the larger issue with New Vegas was that winning the battle would have resulted in a pretty big shift in terms of what would happen to the world. If you won it for the Legion (which I think might make you a jerk, just saying ;)), 90% of the map should be changing from NCR to Legion control.

I think Obsidian said they wanted to handle the ending like that, so you see what happens afterwards, but like many things they were cut short. At least they do give you a nice notice of the point of no return.

The issue I was thinking of was more a matter of quest givers and their positioning. No point in going back to try to do an NCR quest at the solar plant if the Legion rolls over the place. Though I guess they could ask you to shut it all down.

I respect that, for sure. Great stories of this genre tend to have large arcs, and large arcs are seriously compromised if big changes don't result. Those changes make the world scaffolding hardier, let us hang more on it. Even in the vanilla NV, I feel like I'm finding stuff in places I've already visited. Either I didn't explore too carefully or the world is changing. I hope the latter.

I'm playing NV differently than 3, if not in style (killing from a sneaky distance), then in format. I bought FO3 with my PS3 almost completely ignorant of all then-current games, of DLC as a general concept, and specifically of Fallout *. (I had forgotten about that interesting game I'd watched my friend play for a few minutes in 1998 or so.) I played FO3 GOTY, with all DLC outta the gate, and spent quite a while with the Winterized T-51b power armor as well as Jingwei's Shocksword and the cloaking armor. I followed the main quest about as closely as the side quests, and spent quite a while wandering after I'd found my father and gone through all the DLC. I fast travelled more often than not, even if I was disappointed when my wife selected the explorer perk that shows all locations on the map. I started a couple of games, but the one we "beat" clocked in at around 110 hours or so.

For NV, I started on hardcore and have no DLC. I've walked almost the whole game, only sparingly using fast travel, e.g., when I know I don't have much time left and want to get to a better spot. I spend a large chunk of time just wandering, variably picking up side quests, and I'm not sure how much I've moved the main quest along. I've picked up a couple of the named weapons but have made do mostly with a combination of sniper rifle, 10MM SMB, and .357 magnum (though lately I've been using the Gauss rifle over the sniper). I've almost exhausted all the ingredients for weapon repair kits in the Mojave. As of today, I'm 165 hours in, most of which have come in the after hours.

I say all that because I, too, don't want it to end, but I also don't want to walk away. I've walked most everywhere I've been, even west past the Mojave Outpost gate. (It's bland filler out there.) I guess the fact that I'm still finding new things speaks to how hard Obsidian worked. I would love to see a post-war Mojave, new people and factions moving into other areas. maybe the Khans move outta Red Rock. Whatever. New settlements, plants regrowing, etc. Still, I think I'm getting a great return on my time investment as it is.

It's probably at least as much a product of my play style as of how the games were written, but I felt more important to the goings on of the Capital Wasteland and, by corollary, feel freer in the Mojave. Because NV uses reputation more than karma, I can choose how to handle each group independently, e.g., I have no conflicts about profiting from the NCR dogtags I found on already-dead soldiers even if I'm leaning more toward the NCR's favor overall. I'm just making a living out here. There is no noticeable, magical communication of my heroism or villainy across the wastes as there was in FO3. The desert is truly wild--as much as can be codified in a game engine.

(Interesting bug which I hope doesn't wreak havoc on my saved game: the kids in Freeside, that chase each other around, just came out the gate with me. They're wandering the wasteland, though keeping fairly close to the New Vegas wall.)

Hate to keep resurrecting a thread primarily to talk to myself on the internet, but I came across a pretty nice deal the other day. For only $30, you can get the Fallout: New Vegas Ultimate Edition, the chief feature of which is to bring framerates for your game to single-digit glory. A real stop-to-smell-the-roses experience. Through gritted teeth, no less.

I guess the culprit--other than Bethesda's and Obsidian's careful dedication to fine technical craftsmanship--is that I jumped into my 170-hour game (single playthrough). I both expected this and hoped I would be pleasantly surprised.

The question: if I return the FONV UE to GameStop (assume for discussion this is possible) and purchase the DLC from PSN, should I expect the same performance? Seems it would be the same, but several things are not as they seem.

I may have just turned into a gaming sociopath, but how come I am not having fun with New Vegas, and I am not really caring about my actions?

Case in point. I stumbled across a NCR station at a solar plant, that plant also commands an orbital death ray. I got a choice to power up the grid in Vegas, or arm the Laser and nuke the NCR troops from orbit. I did the latter, and did not even get a laugh. I got some weak sauce loot, and it broke a bunch of quest lines requiring talking to some of those troops.

I had similar problems in Fallout 3, and then Skyrim. Eventually I just stopped giving much of a damn. But so far in Fallout NV, I am not even finding the gems like certain faction quest lines in TES.

You might say this mirrors certain challenges in life. If you were to, in a real-life version of this wasteland, have this choice, this choice which--when you entered into it--affected people you didn't know, and more importantly, people whose company you had no expectation to need, maybe you'd be not terribly much more concerned than you were in the game.

I might even have hinted at such, once upon a time, on this very board. Still not quite done synthesizing, and I'll spare everyone the navel gazing. For now.

Edit: Which is to say, yes, you're a sociopath.

Probably because all the characters in every Bethesda game are completely bland and indistinguishable from everyone else. Makes it hard to care one way or the other.

I'll probably remember the characters from Mass Effect until the day I die. I'd be hard pressed to name 5 characters from New Vegas and I'm literally playing through it right now.

That is true, Beth characters are all forgettable. However, games with memorable characters aren't on the same scope as Beth games. Planescape Torment has good sized world but it still isn't near the size of Beth worlds.

gewy wrote:

Probably because all the characters in every Bethesda game are completely bland and indistinguishable from everyone else. Makes it hard to care one way or the other.

I'll probably remember the characters from Mass Effect until the day I die. I'd be hard pressed to name 5 characters from New Vegas and I'm literally playing through it right now.

They're getting better at it, Skyrim was a step up from Oblivion/Fallout. And Dragonborn has Neloth, who is an actual entertaining and memorable character!

I think Oblivion was a big step down from Morrowind actually, which they're only just coming back from, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, full voice acting, which was A. pretty terrible in Oblivion and B. made the scripts simpler by necessity. Secondly, the face tech, which was a bit like the jump from 2D to 3D for games in general, in that the potential was there, but so badly realised it was actually worse than the preset faces in Morrowind, making everyone in Oblivion look like strange mutants. The Fallout games suffered a bit from these issues as well.

I'm actually really interested to see what a post-Skyrim Bethesda Fallout game will look like.

I really liked the overall feel of FO3 better than New Vegas, plot issues notwithstanding. (I didn't actually mind the sacrifice thing, because I didn't have Fawkes with me, so it didn't piss me off.) I was actually a bit more annoyed by the retcon in the DLC.

I just didn't like anyone in NV, pretty much. I didn't care about or want to support any of the groups, except maybe the Boomers, who were okay, but considered a minor faction. And I found it very frustrating that killing Caesar and basically everyone in his camp didn't do anything to derail the war. And none of the companions struck me as especially memorable or special.

But then, with the DLC, wow, what a difference. The DLC in regular FO3 is only okay, but two of the DLC packs are truly outstanding, much better than the main game: Dead Money and Old World Blues. Both of those were amazing. I really enjoyed all the characters in those, and just genuinely had a ton of fun interacting with them, and trying to survive in their environments. Great voice acting, characters with discernible motives and interesting personalities, and difficult, challenging environments. What's not to like? Big thumbs-up from me on both.

The other DLC for NV is only so-so.... Lonesome Road is somewhat interesting, but I found Honest Hearts to be pretty dull. The landscape is the big draw in HH, honestly. Lovely area to wander around in.

My big reservation about DLC was how it raised the total cost of the game, but if you just wait for the Game of the Year packs, it becomes quite reasonable.

gewy wrote:

Probably because all the characters in every Bethesda game are completely bland and indistinguishable from everyone else. Makes it hard to care one way or the other.

Whether or not that point is generally valid, it's worth noting that Bethesda didn't actually make this game.

That is kind of where I am coming from too gore. Black Isle/Obsidian made some good and quirky characters. Or at least they managed to write some good dialog scripts.

I just found fairly generic people, here is a militia, here is the quaint western town.

I cannot place my finger on it, but for whatever reason GSC got me to care about the location outside of Chernobyl, and the meaning of the Sarcophagus. Call of Pripyat is a grand opus to those 3 games. Call of Pripyat really got me caring about my own story, Strelok too. I really do not care about the guy in the sport coat who capped me for a package in New Vegas or about the politics there in. I still care about the fact that the Zone around Chernobyl is expanding, anomalies are appearing beyond the wall, and may encompass the world. Maybe I am still bitter STALKER 2 was shelved.

Hmm, yeah I've only played 2 hours or so of FO:NV and did not enjoy it. I may have been burned out on the style of game at the time (doubtful, as I love going back to Skyrim for a visit) but the very first part of that game is very meh for me. I have not picked it back up after those two hours. Maybe someday I will.

I think most every other one of these sorts of games does a better job of popping you into a world: STALKER, FO3, any TES game. Look, stupid game, I *want* to like you; please give me a reason, any reason at all.

When I got into the bowels of that solar power station intent on triggering the orbital death laser, I was expecting a bigger pay off than, you just killed a few NCR troops and got some busted ass rifles for your trouble. With that over, you cannot reprogram the laser to shoot anywhere else, just in this one tiny area, good luck. They gave me a bottle rocket and told me it was a cruise missile. After all that work, fighting robots I am told "Be Sure to Eat your Ovaltine."

tboon wrote:

Hmm, yeah I've only played 2 hours or so of FO:NV and did not enjoy it. I may have been burned out on the style of game at the time (doubtful, as I love going back to Skyrim for a visit) but the very first part of that game is very meh for me. I have not picked it back up after those two hours. Maybe someday I will.

I think most every other one of these sorts of games does a better job of popping you into a world: STALKER, FO3, any TES game. Look, stupid game, I *want* to like you; please give me a reason, any reason at all.

It took a while for me to really warm up to NV. The first part of the game feels really small, your abilities feel really weak, and unlike FO:3 there's not that single revelatory moment early on where it all just opens up before you.

I just have to say that if you stick with it, you'll be rewarded.

KingGorilla wrote:

When I got into the bowels of that solar power station intent on triggering the orbital death laser, I was expecting a bigger pay off than, you just killed a few NCR troops and got some busted ass rifles for your trouble. With that over, you cannot reprogram the laser to shoot anywhere else, just in this one tiny area, good luck. They gave me a bottle rocket and told me it was a cruise missile. After all that work, fighting robots I am told "Be Sure to Eat your Ovaltine."

Not true, there is an item you can acquire that will allow you to fire the death ray once a day against other targets.

No one in New Vegas has told me about it.

No one will that I recall, I found it on accident.

Spoiler:

There is a kid with a 'raygun' in the city of New Vegas that is actually the range finder for the death ray

Well that answers at least one question. The player is Forrest Gump.

gore wrote:
tboon wrote:

Hmm, yeah I've only played 2 hours or so of FO:NV and did not enjoy it. I may have been burned out on the style of game at the time (doubtful, as I love going back to Skyrim for a visit) but the very first part of that game is very meh for me. I have not picked it back up after those two hours. Maybe someday I will.

I think most every other one of these sorts of games does a better job of popping you into a world: STALKER, FO3, any TES game. Look, stupid game, I *want* to like you; please give me a reason, any reason at all.

It took a while for me to really warm up to NV. The first part of the game feels really small, your abilities feel really weak, and unlike FO:3 there's not that single revelatory moment early on where it all just opens up before you.

I just have to say that if you stick with it, you'll be rewarded.

I agree. I actually stopped a few hours into the game when it first came out. It was just a little too soon after playing FO3. I picked FONV up again late last fall and I'm still playing (I tend to put lots of hours into these sorts of games). I'm halfway through HH, will play Lonesome Road next, and then finish the main campaign. Good stories, but no clear good/bad choices. It's not to everyone's taste, but I like the ambiguity. I picked up the Wild Wasteland perk, which adds a good bit of flavor when you least expect it.

I think I've put 150+ hours into each, and I find much more enjoyable story content even in vanilla New Vegas. Maybe it's partly from the (apparently odd) way that I look at the game, in that I'm looking for a game that allows me to meaningfully role play the person I pick for my character. In New Vegas I felt much more like I could make choices beyond...the kind of stuff I'd do in, for example, Knights of the Old Republic II, in which I'd either have light shining out of my always altruistic ass, or be totally corrupted by the dark side. New Vegas lends itself to a more nuanced, flawed, complex play style, obviously in comparison with KotOR, but for me, much better than FO3.

I replayed FO3 to try a completely different skills set, weapons loadout. I replayed New Vegas (twice) to try different characters to play (who yes had different weapons styles that went along with that).

gore wrote:
gewy wrote:

Probably because all the characters in every Bethesda game are completely bland and indistinguishable from everyone else. Makes it hard to care one way or the other.

Whether or not that point is generally valid, it's worth noting that Bethesda didn't actually make this game.

True enough. And I do feel NV is a step up from FO3, which isn't necessarily saying much.

Anyone playing Project Brazil?

I've put a few hours in and it seems like a well done beta. I had a bit of a chuckle during the opening video to see Jennifer Hale, or rather someone voicing the character with that name.

Looks fun. Might give it a try.