Anbeegod Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 F3 has superior atmosphere. FNV has superior story and freedom. F4 has superior combat and soundtrack.
Wired Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 superior soundtrack Even Jeremy Soule would've write more proper music.
Anbeegod Posted February 6, 2016 Author Posted February 6, 2016 superior soundtrack I can hardly recall any soundtrack from F3 or FNV better than F4, and most of FNV's soundtracks are from F1, 2 and 3. The only good original soundtrack in FNV, I guess, is the one played in Legate's Camp?
Wired Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 I can hardly recall any soundtrack from F3 or FNV better than F4, and most of FNV's soundtracks are from F1, 2 and 3. I can hardly recall where "piano-masturbation" track 1 ends and where "piano-masturbation" track 2 begins. They all bad, actually, all of bethesda's 3d fallouts suffers from bad and unimaginative orchestral music. But it's not Zur's fault, his other osts are pretty well done. But it's not the point. The point is: wasteland doesn't sound like this! Not at all! I believe fallout would be better if there will be no music but just more thorought ambient design.
Tj412 Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 Anyone who votes F4 is in denial of their regrettable purchase. It's a worse fallout game than both 3 and NV, the only thing it really improves on is combat and while it introduces new mechanics they aren't as in depth as they could be, in addition to other mechanics being... "streamlined" to the point of removing all challenge Both Bethesda Fallouts go against the design principles of the originals; Multiple solutions to a given problem, the world reacting to your actions and truly giving them consequence, and skills that have true meaning. Obsidian made a good effort at getting closer to those original principles with Vegas, but you can only do so much when the foundation you're building upon is so far away. There was a huge rant someone made on the subject on /v/ and went into much greater detail, bottom line is I found F4 extremely shallow even compared to 3 and thats saying something
Wired Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 Fallout 3 is not bad and have multiple solutions in most quests as well. So F4 have to. We can't see it because there's not a lot of quests at all. Problem is: Fail 4 is failed to introduce it's changes into roleplay system and combat aswell. Also a ton of cut content due to Todd Howard being Todd Howard.
Tj412 Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 Fallout 3 set the precedent for the following games to... follow. I found that chainpost, it sums up my opinion perfectly. Long read, but worth it http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/034/067/02e.jpg I suppose people who haven't played 1 or 2 or any pen & paper RPGs might not agree with certain parts of it Also just fyi thi was was posted a few months before FO4s release, while the hype train was still full steam ahead
Ernest Lemmingway Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 Problem is: Fail 4 is failed to introduce it's changes into roleplay system and combat aswell. Also a ton of cut content due to Todd Howard being Todd Howard. Why does that not surprise me? If Bethesda has voting stock I'm going to buy a few shares to introduce a vote of no confidence as a player and ex-fan of the company's own work. FO4 might have done well initially, and there are plenty of apologists who still support it, but let's face it. The game is simply not what Bethesda became famous for producing; it's open world...and that's it. Literally. That doesn't bode well for future sales when the base product fails to impress the target audience. Loss of consumer confidence = loss of sales in the future. While FO3 was interesting and less buggy, FONV for me just because it has the better story, characters, and overall feel. Plus Obsidian is home to the same people who actually created the series back at Black Isle and Interplay. They get it when it comes to Fallout; Bethesda shoves it into a TES mold and doesn't once think about how the worlds of both games differ.
Tj412 Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 Problem is: Fail 4 is failed to introduce it's changes into roleplay system and combat aswell. Also a ton of cut content due to Todd Howard being Todd Howard. Why does that not surprise me? If Bethesda has voting stock I'm going to buy a few shares to introduce a vote of no confidence as a player and ex-fan of the company's own work. FO4 might have done well initially, and there are plenty of apologists who still support it, but let's face it. The game is simply not what Bethesda became famous for producing; it's open world...and that's it. Literally. That doesn't bode well for future sales when the base product fails to impress the target audience. Loss of consumer confidence = loss of sales in the future. While FO3 was interesting and less buggy, FONV for me just because it has the better story, characters, and overall feel. Plus Obsidian is home to the same people who actually created the series back at Black Isle and Interplay. They get it when it comes to Fallout; Bethesda shoves it into a TES mold and doesn't once think about how the worlds of both games differ. Yep, it's square-peg-round-hole. To the outside observer, 3 and 4 look like the logical continuation of the series, but the core shit Fallout was about in the first place just isn't there for them.
Mondo80 Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 New Vegas was great, you weren't locked into a role. Yes you were a fedex guy/girl but aside from that you could've been anyone.
oniric1 Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 For me, fallout new vegas is the best. fallout 3 is good for the ambience like fallout 4. i have all the fallout and i play more time on new vegas. we need to wait. the tendency of the new gen was to release a game piece by piece. After all the dlc and patch, fallout 4 can be better.
aljustineg Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 for me fallout NV for freedom and story what i like about the fallout 3 the atmosphere i find new vegas boring because of the caves desert and more deset while F3 has building metro`s and subway`s for fallout 4 i havent played it yet still waiting for the Goty and yet a lot of bad comment`s ive been hearing
Arhon Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 I picked Fallout New Vegas simply because the story and the choices(freedom of choice ftw) are much better, you simply were not locked in being someone else and you could become whoever you want. I do like Fallout 4 alot however but NV takes the cake.
Darkening Demise Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 FONV > Failout 4 FO3 > Failout 4 FONV=RPG FO3=RPG Failout 4=Far Cry 2 mod (looks like a PS2 game, even Skyrim looks better) They took away what made Fallout, Fallout. Instead of aiming for the hardcore role playing community they aimed at the Call of Duty community with a casual shooter. With no challenge, no depth, no story, no characters. The only good thing about Failout 4 is it has Fallout in its name which is an embarrassment to even allow.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.