GameBanshee Forums

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:39 am

Fallout New Vegas opinions?

How close in feeling does it lean to the good Fallouts, and how close to the Bethesda abomination?
I have heard lots of good things about it, but Bethesda's Fallout was a huge & utter disappointment, so I don't want to rush in blindly.
As a sidenote: I actually enjoyed all Obsidian games.

Ares2382 · Post by **Ares2382** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:51 pm

GawainBS wrote:How close in feeling does it lean to the good Fallouts, and how close to the Bethesda abomination?
I have heard lots of good things about it, but Bethesda's Fallout was a huge & utter disappointment, so I don't want to rush in blindly.
As a sidenote: I actually enjoyed all Obsidian games.

I can't tell you how close it feels to the original. Since I never played it. But the writing is deffinetly better then in Fallout 3. But it does use the same game engine (albeit slightly improved version).

So gameplay wise it's not too different from Fallout 3. The story and the writing is where the biggest differences come in between F3 and FNV.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:53 pm

Does it feel more "alive"? More "real"? Bethesda games always have this profound sense of disconnect-ness...

Kipi · Post by **Kipi** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:24 pm

I would say it falls somewhere between original Fallouts and Fallout 3. No, it doesn't reach the feeling (story wise) of the originals but gets somewhat close. In my opinion New Vegas should be considered as The Sequel, third game being some kind of testing ground for the new system it introduced.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:25 pm

That almost convinces me.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:23 pm

GawainBS wrote:Does it feel more "alive"? More "real"? Bethesda games always have this profound sense of disconnect-ness...

Not to me. I'm currently playing my first run through, almost got to the end, but it's been a grind. For me it's nowhere near as good as F3, the story line is extremely weak, gameplay is pretty much the same but the writing very inferior. The side quests are pretty lame too.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:31 am

That's a pretty dismal picture you paint...

Ares2382 · Post by **Ares2382** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:21 pm

Please note, I respect gilraen's opinions, but it's just on this particular topic he's in the minority, at least from all the other comments that I've seen on GB (and other sites as well).

And as I mentioned before I much preffer the writing in F:NV then in F3.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:26 pm

Obsidian > Bethesda, especially where writing is concerned, so I'd be surprised, yes. They're probably tied as to who would be Bug King.
Oh, does FNV takes itself so serious as Bethesda's FO? Or is it more in the FO1 & 2 style?

Daynov · Post by **Daynov** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:43 pm

It's a lot better than Fallout 3. Still this doesn't say much since dog poo is also better than Fallout 3. Not quite like the old games, but occasionally it's somewhat comparable.

It has a rather interesting main quest that can split into multiple paths, your choices matter (most of the time), side missions are plenty and some of them are quite good with several ways of solving them, companions are well written and their personal quests are interesting, really great DLC and there're some nice improvements in the gameplay department (combat is still clunky though).
Unfortunately it's quite buggy and there's some heavy use of invisible walls.

All in all, it almost feels as a true sequel to the first two games.

swcarter · Post by **swcarter** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:36 pm

IIRC, Galraen has some issues with Obsidian.

Anyway, I'd say the writing is better in FONV, the environment is more fun in FO3, and neither game is anywhere close to as good as the original Fallouts.

Also IIRC, FONV takes itself seriously.

SWC

Nymie_the_Pooh · Post by **Nymie_the_Pooh** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:37 pm

Keep in mind Galraen is speaking from the perspective of someone that enjoyed Fallout three more than the first two. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you liked the first two more than Fallout three then your opinion on New Vegas may differ. http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/fallo ... ost1092508

Personally, I liked different aspects of all four of those games from the franchise for different reasons. FO3 was good in my opinion, but I tend to think of it as not being in the same setting as the other games which helps in my case. I actually went from level sixteen to twenty on a character this week so it is something I still play even though I like New Vegas just a smidge more.

If you like Obsidian's writing in games and don't mind the actual engine from Fallout 3 then I say go for it. If either of those is a deal breaker for you then you probably won't care for it very much.

Edit: I originally wrote Oblivion's writing when I meant Obsidian's writing.

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:12 pm

Well, I actually enjoyed all Obsidian's games. I'd rate them at least 80% on the fun factor. (Note: I make a difference between how fun I find a game, and the game's objective qualities.)
I only moderately enjoyed Skyrim after tons of mods.
Is 40€ a good deal for FONV + all DLC?

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:01 pm

IIRC, Galraen has some issues with Obsidian.

Whilst this is true, I don't think my problems with this game are necessarily anything to do with their involvement.

I just couldn't find anything in the main quest that grabbed me, the choices to me were poorly layed out, too vague and the consequences too often contradictory.

Part of the problem, for me, was the blandness of the backdrop after F3. The setting, in a post apocalypse Washington was far more compelling, not to say haunting, than the boring landscape of FNV.The first time I looked down from The Lincoln Memorial toward the Washington Monument had an impact nothing in FNV came even close to. It must have been very strange for anyone who is an inhabitant of the real Washington.

Maybe it's a fault with me, probably is judging by others reaction, but too often I found myself not understanding what I was doing things, or why.

There certainly was little or no evidence of the things that have annoyed me in other Obsidian games; which is why I'm far from sure how much they had to do with my lack of enjoyment in the game.

This isn't a 'bad' game, and I've certainly got more out of it than I did out of F1 & 2, but I don't have anything against those games either; it's a matter of when I first got hold of them. Had I played them when they first came out I'm sure I would have liked them a lot, but by the time I came to them the interface was too outdated for me to get to grips with.

I also haven't used any third party mods in this game yet, I expect that when I do my appreciation will grow. Typical of most Bethesda games, all of them, apart from Buggerfall, were desperately in need of olutside help to make them good.

My rankings of Beth games (out of the box) would be:

Morrowind
Fallout 3
Oblivion
Fallout NV
Daggerfall*

If the third party mods are up to par, then FNV could easilly climb above Oblivion.

The fact that I persevered all the way to the end, and will try again with mods indicates it's not that bad; but I definitely think the writing was poor, some of it was perhaps marginally better than some of the writing in FNV, but I just never was convinced that what my character was doing made much sense, and the plot I found to be definitely lacking in credibility. The latter was also true of F3 in places, especially the pre Brotherhood of Steel ending. Overall thoughI found the F3 writing better. Each to their own, for the price that the game is now, the best thing to do is buy the game and form your own view. It can be obtaine for as little as ten bucks, eighteen for the ultimate version, but I don't think most of the DLC that comes with it is worth the extra. DLC is another area where I think F3 has an advantage over FNV.

*Because of the game killing bugs

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:05 am

One of the things that pushes me toward trying FNV, is that the weapons & armour like slightly more (retro)SF/original FO than the bland current-day gear that FO3 used.
I.e.: the look of a character in combat armour in FO3 compared to one in combat armour in FNV. The first one made me feel like a shooter (Modern Warfare or something), the latter at least showed a bit more SF/uniqueness.

Personally, my biggest turn-off and a big indication of the lame-ass rape that Bethesda perpetraded (sp?) on FO, was Rivet City: The nuclear war started in 2077, yet the aircraft carrier is lined with real-world jets from the '50s, which weren't even carrier-borne!

GawainBS · Post by **GawainBS** » Fri May 04, 2012 10:37 am

I've played some 30-odd hours so far on NV, and I'm loving it. The story is engaging, with plenty of reference to the other two FO's. (Granted, this is situated near the West Coast, so it's only logical.) The NPC have more character too.
The quests are entertaining, and the whole setting with the Legion vs NCR is well-presented.
If you select the Wild Wasteland trait, it even feels more like FO.

So, thanks to those that convinced me to try it!

GameBanshee Forums

Fnv

Fnv