ElvenScoundrel Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 For NV being buggy and crashing constantly, there's this: http://www.newvegasnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=44204 NV is just a better game. Of couse, Fallout 3 is fun. It does give you a very gritty post-apoc feel, due to it's urban vibe, but it's bland game. You'll most likely remember how you killed that one Super Mutie than how you blew up John Henry Eden. The game is a sort of strange tribute to previous Fallout games but doesn't tie all it's content with 'em. In short, Bethesda probably wanted to rewrite the Fallout setting their own way. Sad to say, they have shit writers. About the only thing I miss from FO3 is the actual Capital Wasteland. It's pretty fun going through the streets of DC, visiting the White House, the Jefferson Memorial, etc. But then again, I have access to Requiem of a Capital Wasteland. It's FO3 with NV's improvements. Way I see it, it's win/win.
Guest Donkey Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 New Vegas' dev team had a lot of the original creators on it. That's why NV's story revisits the consequences of how those games turned out. One of they very first quests in Fallout is saving Tandi of Shady Sands from the Khans. Tandi doesn't get saved' date=' the NCR doesn't get founded. The Khans don't get their asses kicked, the psychological damage to the sole survivor doesn't form the Great Khans. As a trivia sidenote, the Khans, Shady Sands and Vipers were formed when the residents of Vault 15 disagreed with each other and splintered. Two hundred years later, they forget the beginnings of when they crawled out of a hole in the ground. In NV, you have a chance to forge a peace between the NCR and Khans. If you're a long time fan, you know you're bringing full circle, even if the NPCs and the Courier are ignorant to that. Every choice the player makes in a Fallout game echoes through the past and shapes the future. Based on that criteria alone, Fallout 3 is not a Fallout game. [/quote'] Well, your reasoning there has a flaw, since F03 takes place on the other side of the continent, events from previous Fallout games would hardly have much impact on life in the DC Wasteland, neither would your choices have any effect on the classic Fallout-country in the american southwest. Basically your reasoning would mean that one could not possibly make a Fallout-game that did not take place in the southwest. Well in that case, they should have named it something else. Fallout 3 the name itself implies it should have been continuation of the first 2 episode witch is not the case. But the game alone is worth the 10 bugs now, but not the 40 bugs i paid for it originally even without DLC. I f i knew back then what i knew now, this is the time to buy it, not when it came out.
Kashked Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 New Vegas' dev team had a lot of the original creators on it. That's why NV's story revisits the consequences of how those games turned out. One of they very first quests in Fallout is saving Tandi of Shady Sands from the Khans. Tandi doesn't get saved' date=' the NCR doesn't get founded. The Khans don't get their asses kicked, the psychological damage to the sole survivor doesn't form the Great Khans. As a trivia sidenote, the Khans, Shady Sands and Vipers were formed when the residents of Vault 15 disagreed with each other and splintered. Two hundred years later, they forget the beginnings of when they crawled out of a hole in the ground. In NV, you have a chance to forge a peace between the NCR and Khans. If you're a long time fan, you know you're bringing full circle, even if the NPCs and the Courier are ignorant to that. Every choice the player makes in a Fallout game echoes through the past and shapes the future. Based on that criteria alone, Fallout 3 is not a Fallout game. [/quote'] Well, your reasoning there has a flaw, since F03 takes place on the other side of the continent, events from previous Fallout games would hardly have much impact on life in the DC Wasteland, neither would your choices have any effect on the classic Fallout-country in the american southwest. Basically your reasoning would mean that one could not possibly make a Fallout-game that did not take place in the southwest. Well in that case, they should have named it something else. Fallout 3 the name itself implies it should have been continuation of the first 2 episode witch is not the case. But the game alone is worth the 10 bugs now, but not the 40 bugs i paid for it originally even without DLC. I f i knew back then what i knew now, this is the time to buy it, not when it came out. Well, it still takes place in the same world, with the same backstory, but I can see how it would annoy fans of the classics. I never had more than a fleeting aquiantence with the classic games, so maybe that is why I don't see much of a problem in FO3 being disconected.
Guest Loogie Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 The problem isn't that it's disconnected, the fact that it's a poorly written FPS with no choice where your skills mean virtually nothing shits on the franchise.
Symon Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Be fair Loogie! Beth have been defecating on their OWN franchise for some time so what else could we expect? I remember the threads on No Mutants Allowed and the Beth Officials where it soon became obvious (to me anyway) that Beth didn't actually understand what they'd bought and that we wouldn't end up with a Fallout game. Oblivion with Guns is what we have, but with enough tweaking, either can be made worth playing. To expand on Beth's lack of grasp, why is their no character pre-view in FO3? There was in FO1 and 2. Why is almost everything done through the pip boy, like your inventory? It wasn't in FO1 and 2, where the PIP boy was for accessing info that was plausible might be on a pocket computer. Last time I checked, people who wonder what they are wearing pat them selves down or look down; check their pockets, etc? Always had the impression Beth fired up FO2 for 10 minutes and then got to hacking bits of Oblivion. Ahh if only we'd had Van Buren instead! I played the leaked demo. It would have been good.
Guest Loogie Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 I played the whole through Fallout 3, driven by nostalgia, hoping it would turn into a Fallout game. The basic setup is fine, but all Bethesda games I've tried have this veneer of depth that, once you crack it, you realize any choice you make doesn't matter and even though you can go anywhere and do anything, the story still has you on rails. The writing in Fallout 3... I can't say enough bad about it. Most major plot points are lifted directly from the first two games and then mishandled. Something came back to as a classic example are the notes concerning Roy Phillips that are put out to all ghouls, talking about how they need to descend with "righteous anger" on Tenpenny tower. Why is the anger righteous? What religion are they following? Why would the ghoul community at large give a shit when most of them are holed up, relatively comfortable in Underworld? It's written like something you'd see in a fantasy game. New Vegas really did save the franchise in my eyes. It feels just like a Fallout game with first person combat - which they've changed the mechanics of to make it feel right. I genuinely hope Bethesda farms out Fallout 4 to Obsidian, or loses the license in the current court battle with Interplay, because the future isn't bright for a Fallout 4 developed by Bethesda.
Symon Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 I like your 'veneer of depth' description. Got to agree. The last Beth game I played that did seem to have actual depth was Morrowind. Much better story than Oblivion or, from what I understand, Skyrim.
Guest Loogie Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 This is the difference in depth between the two games, best summed up by my experience instead of a debate: My favorite memories from New Vegas are the Brotherhood of Steel story arc that's Veronica's companion quest; Yes Man; the fact that when you finally meet the burned man you get a massive dose of reality of what's actually behind the legend. Hanlon's speech to Camp Golf if you convince him to surrender is one of the most poignant moments I've had in a videogame. The full story of Randall Dean Clark in Honest Hearts is the only time a videogame has ever had the emotional impact to make me weep. In Fallout 3, the only concrete memories that stuck with me are the first time I met a supermutant, which was firing wildly off-target rockets at me and I had to figure out it's location before being turned into paste, and the time I wiped out Fort Bannister because one of the Talon Company assholes sniped dogmeat. And while wiping out the fort, I kept getting struck by the thought a real Fallout game would at least let me talk to these assholes to find out what their deal is.
Rogue13 Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Fallout 3 is absolutely worth playing. It is a really fun game that will provide hours of enjoyment. What I tend tp like in Fallout is roleplaying. Bethesda did a good job with this game. What particularly got me was how well they did in creating the right ambiance. It felt like a wasteland, it felt large and sparse and ravaged. It's the only game in the franchise that has done cities REALLY well. Washington felt like a ravaged city. It was creepy and dangerous and dificult to get through. So, an emphatic YES to to your question. You will not spend a better tenner.
2pac4eva7 Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 as a completely vanilla, or modded game, i enjoyed fallout 3 more than new vegas. just my opinion
gregathit Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 I also would agree that it is well worth a few bucks. I still go back to DC maybe once a year
Halstrom Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 One thing that did dissapoint me about FO3 was most buildings seemed to be too linear inside, there was only one set of stairs to go to each floor, one way in one way out, you could only play each instance in one way.
labrat Posted January 6, 2012 Author Posted January 6, 2012 A resounding Yes! Probably died more times in the last two days than in a year of Oblivion or a month of Skyrim, and enjoyed it immensely. The immersion is miles ahead of Oblivion and I like the sense of humour....though I suspect I will gang up with the supermuties and take down Galaxy if 3Dog doesn't get more records. I think that the environment is much better conceived than Ob. And the vanilla PCs are not so bad looking. The combination of beautiful weather, post-apocalyptic decay and pre-war music works very well - massacreeing (or more often being slaughtered by) mutants to Bing Crosby crooning.....who'd'a'thought of that one? Let's see if it can keep up the challenges, fun and pace 'til GOTY NV in Feb. In between playing I'm trying to get Animated Prostitution working, Sexus too, 'though the one visit to the sexus Vault was a bit bleak.
gregathit Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 The adult mod that I had the most fun with was: Seducing Women http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=2341 I didn't have access at the time to Sexus and animated prostitution was still in the works. Not sure how compatible they would all be together.....
gregathit Posted January 7, 2012 Posted January 7, 2012 I liked it because there was more than just go here bang so and so. You actually had to work to get some of them into bed and you will need one perk in particular! It provided a little spice to the limb flying slaughter fest Hint: Lady Killer
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now