Jump to content

How New Vegas/F3 was meant to be

Kashiwaba Tomoe

By Kashiwaba Tomoe,
in Fallout General Discussion

Recommended Posts

KainsChylde

KainsChylde

Posted
Posted

So this image is how a failed gaming company that went under while mid development intended it to be? That may be a sign right there.

 

I loved the first two games. Fallout 2 was the first PC game I played. That being said, Interplay went down the tubes for a reason, and from what I've read if Van Buren (the Interplay Fallout 3 project name) had been completed, the Fallout series would have died with Interplay. Bethesda's entries in the series may not be perfect. They may not fit the "purists" views of how a Fallout game should be. But they were successful enough to guarantee the Fallout legacy continues, leaving the window open for a true Fallout successor in the future.

Link to comment
Kashiwaba Tomoe

Kashiwaba Tomoe

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yes, INTERPLAY chose to close it AFTER canceling project Van Buren (internal name for F3) in favor of a CONSOLE fallout spinoff devolped out of hose, which not only bombed in sales, but didn't even make the planned christmas season release date, and was so buggy that INTERPLAY closed down their fourm section for that game, then their entire fourm, due to massive complaints of bugs (that, and trolling by Fallout fans such as myself)

Link to comment
theskid

theskid

Posted
Posted

It's no use arguing with the new fans Kashi, if they didn't play the originals whether just from never giving them a chance or just being too young at the time it's hard to convince them now. There are many folk out there who don't enjoy older games simply due to interface issues, graphics issues and suchwhat. I had really high hopes for van buren and watched as Interplay crashed and burned with immense dissapointment.

 

When Bethesda picked up the Fallout license I had cautious optimism, as I had enjoyed daggerfall, though I never played morrowind and heard bad things about Oblivion. In all respect they did a great job envisioning a post apocalyptic world and it's great fun to roam around in, but the better part of the story line and quests are kinda herp derp, and the world doesn't feel fleshed out like the originals did, the npc's factions and quests just don't work for me to feel like it's a living breathing world. Basically I've never finished the game, because I'm simply not interested in the story enough to bother, though I do occasionally go out for a stroll because it's pretty to look at.

 

I was very excited with fallout new vegas, done by practically the entire team that was working on Van Buren back at Interplay and to me it really is the proper sequel the originals deserved. Putting aside preferences for turnbased combat and or suitability of the engine, New Vegas really picks up the plotlines from the orginal games and advances them forward in time, with believable factions, npcs and story lines that resonate, while allowing a great scope in freedom of action for the player to have real effects on the game world that were missing from bethesda's game.

 

I'm still looking forward to more fallout games, and post apoc games in general, but hoping that they continue with a focus on story as much as Obsidian's game, or that at least they get to do more games in the fallout universe.

Link to comment
Kashiwaba Tomoe

Kashiwaba Tomoe

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Looking at that' date=' I couldn't possibly stand the interface or graphics. Same goes for FO1/2 - might've been great for their time, but that time is over.

[/quote']

 

Well ok then, lets compare, clickey on the thumbnails to see bigger.

 

Since Fallout was designed to run on a much lower resolution that was common at the time, regardless of screen size, I've re sized them to be equal sizes.

 

 

 

comp1.jpg

 

Here's two random screencaps of the stats page of each game.

 

Now, since a page with RPG stats is something that would break immersion, one game decides to simply have a single simple page to view.

 

The other has it viewed on a screen you wear on your wrist, as if the player knows it's a computer game.

 

Furthermore, which one looks modern, and which looks like a poor attempt at copying the other.......

 

 

Also, try scoring a fuckton of XP at once in FO3/FONV and advancing multiple levels at once.

 

What happens to you ?

You spend forever leveling up, going screen to screen, then closing the screen, then it opens again and you repeat until done.

 

In fallout/Fallout 2, you hit C and open the characther stat sheet menu. It opens instantly, and you can apply ALL skill points in a single go.

 

Now lets do the same thing with inventory....

comp2.jpg

 

 

One is full color, has pictures so you know what every item looks like, and if you rightclick you even have the option to pull up a description of the item too, such as the equipped alien blaster in the first picture, or even the blue nuka cola bottle.

 

The otehr is shades of green, and at most has a green siloute showing how something looks.

 

About the only thing the 'modern' interface does better with inventory is to allow sorting by item type, but that doesn't even let you stack items how you want to within the inventory.

 

And to be honest, all that needed improvement was a bigger grid type of setup for the inventory, so you could see more at once, like in some Oblivion GUI mods.

 

All in all, a late 1990s RPG still looks better.

Link to comment
Cezul

Cezul

Posted
Posted

I always felt that Fallout ( or fallout 3/New vegas ) as an FPS should have had more combat features and such. Being able to go into prone, zero in your rifles, actually peek and shoot around corners, small things like that which really enhance the experience.

 

The melee also felt pretty bland, if there were a few more weapon types, that might have alleviated it.

Link to comment
DoctaSax

DoctaSax

Posted
Posted

I would've liked that too, Cezul, but hey, the more you put in, the longer it takes to publish, & these guys are on a schedule ;)

 

KT, when I said I couldn't stand interface or graphics, I was mostly talking about the in-game HUD, the bird's eye perspective, and the fact that the world looks a thousand times better in FO3/FNV, making for a much more immersive experience. All those things you barely even notice until you make the comparison, like horizons and sandbox AI. For all the crap beth & obsidian get from FO1/2 purists in terms of story, and I think nostalgia plays a big distorting part in that, at the very least they deserve a whole lot of credit for the way they made their fallout universe look and feel. I'll admit the inventory isn't all it could be, but if they'd stuck to showing items in inventory, that would've looked and played better than in FO1/2 too - the only time I ever tried FO1 the inventory was completely unresponsive & counterintuitive, which annoyed me right until the whole thing crashed 10 minutes after, cue uninstall.

 

What irks me most is the casual way in which you say that the VanBuren demo thingie, equally crashprone and looking antiquated, is what FO3/FNV "was meant to be". Because it's all just a poor copy of the real thing, right? Heard that too many times. But VanBuren/Interplay FO3 didn't happen, so was not meant to be at all. Interplay/whatever dropped the ball, Beth picked it up. Turning a dead franchise into something with staying power. FO fans should be kissing their ass just for that. And even if original FO1/2 guys work on an FO game, they will still make one that looks and feels like Beth's. Like FNV, which doesn't try to be Van Buren at all because it's completely different .

 

Beth sometimes makes decisions that make me wanna pull my hair out, but it's unfair to keep treating them as if they ruined fallout while they actually saved it. Not to mention that they built it with an engine that is so moddable you can personally change about 99% of it, if you want.

Link to comment
Kashiwaba Tomoe

Kashiwaba Tomoe

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So basically all you're saying is that Bethesda turned FO into a poorly executed FPS, with a weak sandbox AI, and you can see the horizons in the disatance (despite everything being rather close together) and that's an improvement.

 

Naw, I'll call shit shit and leave it at that and say I still would have rather the series died than turn into oblivion with guns.

 

As for FO and it's inventory, I agree, it sucked, which was why it got improved for FO2.

 

That said, I think the way it worked in Morrowind was even superior to that of F3/FONV, due to the way you could do all sorts of clothing, robes over armor, etc etc.

 

That said, as proven by how each game after morrowind had been further dumbed down, Bethesda makes their games as simple as fuck and marketed for retarded console kiddies.

 

As for it's being modable, not really.

 

The turn based mods are buggy as fuck, VATS is just plain horrible, and there have been no real mods to attempt to make the game feel/look as close to the originals as possible.

 

 

 

 

And Cezul, all of that and more was possible in FPSs that came out around the time Fallout and Fallout2 came out, much less a decade later, showing just how LITTLE effort Bethesda put into it.

Minus the over rated graphics, everything in F3/FONV was possible at the time Fallout was first made.

 

Fallout3 is simply a poorly done total conversion mod of Oblivion, with FONV being a total conversion mod of F3.

Link to comment
KainsChylde

KainsChylde

Posted
Posted

I'm sorry for my previous comments. You're right, I was in a bad mood and trolling, it happens.

 

But my statement still stands. Everywhere you ever comment about Fallout 3 or New Vegas, every thread you start about them, is bitching about something or other about them. Any time anyone responds with anything in favor of the games, you have to belittle their comments and make snide remarks.

 

So as I said before, if you hate the games so much, don't play them and ignore their existence.

Link to comment
DoctaSax

DoctaSax

Posted
Posted

So basically all you're saying is that Bethesda turned FO into a poorly executed FPS' date=' with a weak sandbox AI, and you can see the horizons in the disatance (despite everything being rather close together) and that's an improvement. [/quote']

 

It's an FPS-RPG blend; not easy to pull off, so yeah, they drop the ball here & there. So what, name me one game developer that doesn't. Can't have each & every fps functionality, rpg functionality, complicated multi-path stories & what not and still publish within a decade. Be realistic.

And horizons, the weather, landscape et al are a huge bonus over the originals. It puts you in the world, rather than hovering over it. How is that not a thousand times better? You're alone and vulnerable in the hostile desert - FO3/FNV make you actually feel that. The graphics and ambiance are not just the wrapping, they're an essential part of the experience now.

 

Naw, I'll call shit shit and leave it at that and say I still would have rather the series died than turn into oblivion with guns.

So... it's shit, is it? Fuck me, if you'd told me only 10 years ago I was gonna get to play something like FO3/FNV, I couldn't have imagined it. So good thing it wasn't up to you.

 

That said, as proven by how each game after morrowind had been further dumbed down, Bethesda makes their games as simple as fuck and marketed for retarded console kiddies.

 

Yeah, but the retards who're too stupid to know how shit these games are bring in the money that lets the series survive and become a tad more than just a cult game from a bygone age.

 

As for it's being modable, not really.

The turn based mods are buggy as fuck, VATS is just plain horrible, and there have been no real mods to attempt to make the game feel/look as close to the originals as possible.

 

Then make some. Enough with the negativity, FFS. Unlike FO1/2, almost everything in FO3/FNV can be changed by anybody to their own liking. Bodies, clothing, faces, weapons, lands, interiors, AI, weather, creatures, music & sound fx, animations, dialog & story... the list goes on & on. (And practically all of those are already better than FO1/2 in vanilla.)

If you want something exactly like the original - and I'm getting the sense you wouldn't settle for less - then play the original & quit griping about games most people here love to bits. I don't spam FO1/2 forums with posts saying those games are shit either.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

View Community Rules

Help Support LoversLab

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. For more information, see our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use