Has anyone else played Fallout: New Vegas? IMO: It ruins the Fallout 3 formula in pretty much every way, and is the closet comparison to a real game being a zeta rip that I've ever come across. Basically, Obsidian took an already existing game, added a bunch of meaningless items/content, made a bunch of pointless changes - most of which weren't for the better, changed the map - again not for the better, added a couple new systems - which don't work worth a crap because they didn't know what they were doing in the first place, and managed to break countless things in the process. There were so many crippling bugs on release day that the game was literally unplayable, and some of them still haven't been fixed.
In short, they degraded and/or completely broke practically everything. If you're considering getting this game, and don't already have FO3, get that instead. Even if you do already own FO3, I would just recommend playing through that one some more, instead of wasting your time/money on the pile of crap they call New Vegas. They should have just made it another DLC for Fallout 3.
ID:181359
 Oct 22 2010, 12:00 am
|
|
|
Oct 22 2010, 9:27 am
|
|
Ripiz
 |
Fallout New Vegas (FONV) crashes often for me, also it lags randomly. I could kinda agree they messed it up.
|
Falacy wrote:
Has anyone else played Fallout: New Vegas? IMO: It ruins the Fallout 3 formula in pretty much every way, and is the closet comparison to a real game being a zeta rip that I've ever come across. Basically, Obsidian took an already existing game, added a bunch of meaningless items/content, made a bunch of pointless changes - most of which weren't for the better, changed the map - again not for the better, added a couple new systems - which don't work worth a crap because they didn't know what they were doing in the first place, and managed to break countless things in the process. There were so many crippling bugs on release day that the game was literally unplayable, and some of them still haven't been fixed. Is it really that bad? Man... there go my high hopes. | |
Doobly-Doo Productions wrote:
Is it really that bad? Man... there go my high hopes. Fallout 3 is one of my favorite games of all time. New Vegas was disappointing in every possible way. Also, its probably worth noting that NV offers the same failtastic ending that FO3 had when it originally released. You beat the game, and its game over. Just another reason not to waste your money on it. | |
I got extremely wrapped into Fallout 3. But after surfing through it and destroying every part of the map. I got tired and was hoping New Vegas would be worth it. Guess I'll wait for Fable III.
| |
You can blame Bethesda for the bugs you're experiencing, that Gamebryo engine has always had a multitude of problems. It's really hard to blame Obsidian for any of it since the same bugs have appeared in pretty much every game using the engine.
I find it kinda funny how you equate New Vegas to being a Zeta rip seeing as how Obsidian is composed mostly of former Black Isle Studios developers. You know, the guys who originally created Fallout 1&2. If anything you should be happy they're back since unlike Bethesda who chose to disregard game lore by having the Brotherhood of Steel act like police rather than a technology cult, Obsidian actually respects the source material since they made it. Why would you complain about them changing the map? It's a new game, you should be expecting a whole new world to explore. The map in Fallout 3 wasn't even that great to begin with, the whole world was just a bunch of rubble. In New Vegas there are actually plants and they aren't all clustered in one spot! A big problem I had with Fallout 3 was how you were pretty much forced to use VATS constantly and had to watch the same slow motion death scenes over and over. Now since you're able to actually aim your weapon in real-time it's a lot more engaging. I'm really baffled by how you can love Fallout 3 so much then tear apart New Vegas like it's nothing. They're basically the same game with the same problems, only New Vegas has made a bunch of improvements. | |
It's all the same now'a'days, but BYOND got to the ball first.
If you take a good look, about 50% of newly released games are just like Zeta-Rips on BYOND. They're more of a DLC, like you have mentioned, rather than a full-scale game. I can't believe people actually bought that Fable : Lost Chapters, and found out it's nothing at all but a map add-on and some small amount of additional items. I would say the same thing with Halo : Custom Edition. It's nothing big at all. Both of those games should NOT have been a regularly priced game. Hell, F:LC was more expensive than Fable I for a while. It's rather pathetic that game developers in the big offices, making big paychecks can't even make a game anymore. They rely too much on pre-existing games and engines, and expect gamers to just go out and buy a, what should be expansion pack or add-on for at the most 25% of the actual game's price, sequel just because they are fans. Now, I can't be biased here. I've never had my hands on Fallout 3 nor have I played Fallout : New Vegas. However, watching others play the two games, I can't see a distinct difference. The textures are nearly the same, the gameplay is nearly the same with no improvements, and it's just over-all the same game just renamed, repackaged, and redistributed to be sold. | |
SuperAntx wrote:
You can blame Bethesda for the bugs you're experiencing, that Gamebryo engine has always had a multitude of problems. It's really hard to blame Obsidian for any of it since the same bugs have appeared in pretty much every game using the engine. I rarely had any problems with Fallout 3. Granted, I didn't even get the game until the latest patches were released for it, but still. The only ones I had were very rare crashes, and a problem with max water graphics causing the entire game to freeze/lag even when there was no water around. Fallout: NV not only has both of these bugs (far more frequent crashes), but it introduces a ton of new ones. Not the least of which are that the game was incapable of saving when running the steam version, which was great after playing for 6 hours and finding out none of it saved, and a graphical bug where whenever you look at human NPCs it drops your frame rate to a blazing 15 FPS. The FPS issue still hasn't been fixed, and the save issue they basically just fixed by disabling steam features in their game - high quality work they put out. [...] Pretty much everything you said in those 2 paragraphs are my exact complaints about New Vegas. I think I speak for most people when I say I didn't play Fallout 1&2, and that the major changes to Fallout 3 were what made the Fallout series popular in the first place. If Fallout 3 had just been another continuation on the series (which it was originally planned to be) I doubt anyone would give two hoots about Fallout. Fallout NV may be going back to the original lore, but for a game that's supposed to be extending off of FO3, that's just fail, and is one of my biggest issues with NV. For that matter, I barely even get any lore from FONV. Where's all that lore? All the immersion? A world that actually feels like you're there and NEED to be there? FONV is as generic a game as I've ever played, I swear I've heard this story before, in every game and movie that I've ever seen. The citizens of the world don't seem to need your help in the least - but instead seem to be more like generic MMO quest givers; "Hey, I'm perfectly capable of doing this myself, but I'm lazy as hell, so why don't you go do it for me?". In FO3, everyone seemed like regular people, trying to scrape by in an actual wasteland, and when they asked for help, it felt like they actually needed it. The world in FONV doesn't even feel like a wasteland, aside from the fact that the map is horribly designed - barren, empty, bland, poorly textured, BLAH. People have water, power, homes, weapons, etc. It just feels like a normal world where they forgot to water the grass. As for "expecting a whole new world to explore", they kill this as well, which was probably the best part of FO3. There's little point to exploring the world in FONV, because everything is controlled by factions, and unless you're willing to steal, then there's nothing worth exploring for. On top of that, there are few areas that ARE even explorable, most of them are a single room with maybe one or two boxes for looting inside. In FO3 there were caches of everything all around, and the places that were marked on your map were massive and well designed. I also completely hate the VATS changes, though I can see this one being a matter of opinion at least. I loved VATSing(?) enemies in FO3, in FONV its practically impossible, and you have to default to manual aim in pretty much every battle. This isn't helped at all by the fact that they broke the camera in both 3rd and 1st person views. The default cross-hairs just aim oddly, and when you look down the sights you lose like 90% of the screen to a giant view of the gun's iron sights. Supposedly there are weapon attachments (silencers, scopes, bigger mags), which sounds like an awesome idea, but I've yet to see a single one of them anywhere in the game. Also, the Brotherhood of Steel lore was pretty well explained in FO3. They were a technological "cult" back west, but when they came east scavenging for new tech, they came across heavy super mutant resistance, and were basically forced into fighting. There are even quarrels amongst the BoS members in FO3 about them being a policing force - and that's why the darker, alternate group of them exists in Broken Steel. Elder Lyons wants to protect the people, because they're the ones really capable of doing it, the other group just wants to loot tech. I'm really baffled by how you can love Fallout 3 so much then tear apart New Vegas like it's nothing. They're basically the same game with the same problems, only New Vegas has made a bunch of improvements. The only thing I would consider an improvement in FONV is the companion wheel. And though that is an improvement, it could still be a lot better. There are various other things changed and/or added, however, none of them are truly improvements over the FO3 formula, vast majority of them are actually deprovements(?). Exploration, immersion, and VATS were the best parts of FO3 IMO, and they were all ruined in FONV. EDIT: Oh, they also ruined the radio in FONV. Though this could be a matter of opinion, the radio was something I loved from FO3. The host, the happy music about how perfect the world was, while you explore a burnt out building full of super mutants. In FONV, not only is the host too normal/generic, but the songs are all depressing. And they don't have a very wide variety of songs in NV either, heck, the 2 default radio stations play half of the same songs. In FO3 the radio station was a major part of the game, there was a quest to restore it, the host talked about you - and other world events - often, and you actually met him and helped out and all. Just another thing ruined by NV. | |
No, it isn't. Falacy has no idea what he's talking about. It's actually a big improvement over the original, which I didn't like too much. Vastly superior atmosphere, story, and quests. The only department it's lacking in is the exploration department, but hey, it's Obsidian.
| |
Toadfish wrote:
Vastly superior atmosphere, story, and quests. That's a joke, right? I really hope so... | |
95% of game developers have the exact opposite of a big paycheck and a big office. Well, assuming you mean 'the programmers and artists' when you say 'game developers'. If you meant management, then carry on, sir!
| |
Maximus_Alex2003 wrote:
Now, I can't be biased here. I've never had my hands on Fallout 3 nor have I played Fallout : New Vegas. However, watching others play the two games, I can't see a distinct difference. The textures are nearly the same, the gameplay is nearly the same with no improvements, and it's just over-all the same game just renamed, repackaged, and redistributed to be sold. Ignoring an entire game's worth (plus some, as it has more than Fallout 3) of new content, such as storylines, missions, characters, dialogue, music, etc. Plus, it's from a large portion of the creators of the original Fallout games (Fallout and Fallout 2). | |
Too bad it is true. Fallout NV is superior to Fallout 3 in every way possible.
The story in FO3 was hilariously bad. You chase around daddy for 90% of the game, then collect items to give everyone fresh water. (Provided they're advanced enough to make a system to remove radiation from water, they sure don't know you can do the exact same with a handful of dirt, which naturally filters and removes radiation from water anyway) It's not much better in FONV, but it's not one giant waste of time that anyone with a handful of dirt and half a brain could achieve. Also, FO3 had a very poor way of handling quests. In most cases, quests were kill someone/go somewhere/collect something. That was almost as complex as it ever got. In FONV, I just did a quest that had about 20 different endings to it, and several routes I could take. Tons of quests in FONV have multiple ways to complete them, with side options (even the side quests have side quests!) and multiple conclusions. Some of which actually effect the world. Not only that, but in FO3, reputation is a joke. You can murder the entire world, steal everything, nuke Megaton, then give a homeless guy a few bottles of water and you're suddenly a saint. Stuff like this cannot and does not happen in FONV. Almost every action you make has a consequence, some irreversible. Atmosphere is also significantly improved in FONV. Fallout 3 was bland and boring. The world was gray and lifeless, almost all of it was not worth looking at. It also felt surreal. Provided the world was radioactive, inhospitable and full of stuff that wanted to kill you, it never felt dangerous at all. In FONV, the world still has areas that feel lifeless, but you can see that people use to inhabit the place. Other places, where humans inhabit actually feel like there is some life to them. The world also feels much more realistic, sometimes you'll see something, and slowly start walking backwards with a look of horror on your face (you'll never understand the horror of running into a pack of deathclaws at level 2 while armed with nothing but a 9mm pistol). Also, go and visit Vault 22. Other things FONV improves is merging gameplay with storyline. Things you do in the game effect the storyline and quests, even down to things like the stats you picked. It also improved gameplay in tons of ways. No leveled enemies/loot, no stupid percentage based chances to do anything (because we all loved failing, reloading, failing and doing this until we succeeded), a lot of useless things from FO3 have been made useful (especially in hardcore mode) and the general FPS aspects of the game have been significantly improved. The only downside is bugs, which will probably be fixed in the future anyway. Other than that, the game is superior in every way possible. | |
Ugh, I'm not even going to waste my time responding to all of that. Just know that everything you said there is ass backwards. Have you even played Fallout 3? Because it sounds like you're basing your entire theory of it off of reading 2 reviews and watching a youtube video.
| |
Translation: I cannot show any proof to refute anything you have said, so I'll just shrug off everything you said and claim you are wrong.
Maybe you should actually play both games before claiming to be qualified enough to judge and compare them both. Because clearly you have not played either of them, and if you did, it was not very much and/or you ignored all the important parts of them. PS. Both Fallout 3 and New Vegas are pretty mediocre compared to the STALKER games. | |
Falacy wrote:
Ugh, I'm not even going to waste my time responding to all of that. Just know that everything you said there is ass backwards. Now you know how I feel about that solid block of text you dumped a few posts up. | |
The Magic Man wrote:
Translation: I cannot show any proof to refute anything you have said, so I'll just shrug off everything you said and claim you are wrong.OK, here we go then. Too bad it is true. Fallout NV is superior to Fallout 3 in every way possible.Just blatantly wrong, description to follow! The story in FO3 was hilariously bad. You chase around daddy for 90% of the game, then collect items to give everyone fresh water.As opposed to the much improved chasing unknown attempted murderers around for 90% of the game? At least in FO3 each step along the road was a fulfilling activity, in FONV, you basically just ask some guy for directions, who points you somewhere else, who points you somewhere else. Not to mention, throwing you into the roll of some unnamed courier is ridiculously pathetic. The character creation process in FO3 is probably the most unique/immersing process in any game I've ever played. It's not much better in FONV, but it's not one giant waste of time that anyone with a handful of dirt and half a brain could achieve.Assuming this is at all a legit process to begin with, which it sounds ridiculous, you expect them to filter enough water for the entire wasteland one "handful of dirt" at a time? Also, FO3 had a very poor way of handling quests. In most cases, quests were kill someone/go somewhere/collect something. That was almost as complex as it ever got.So far, that's exactly what I've seen from FONV, except with even less reason supporting the quests in the first place, as I said in one of my previous posts. In FONV, I just did a quest that had about 20 different endings to it, and several routes I could take. Tons of quests in FONV have multiple ways to complete them, with side options (even the side quests have side quests!) and multiple conclusions. Some of which actually effect the world.So, exactly the same case as FO3? Just more support for my theory that you've never actually played it. Not only that, but in FO3, reputation is a joke. You can murder the entire world, steal everything, nuke Megaton, then give a homeless guy a few bottles of water and you're suddenly a saint.First off, the same "reputation" systems exists in NV, its called Karma. Whether you can increase it by handing out water, I'm unsure, but I never used that method in FO3, so it doesn't matter much either way really. If anything, its a much better design, adding re-playability and freedom to the game. I really hate having to replay an entire game just to see a slightly different dialog selection because I'm good or evil. Stuff like this cannot and does not happen in FONV. Almost every action you make has a consequence, some irreversible.Indeed that does happen in FONV, even worse off if anything. Want to explain to me how murdering a random criminal out in the "wasteland" somehow relays to their entire gang that I did it? They have a magical/psychic connection do they? On top of that, you can just put on a disguise and it completely negates any faction relation you have with them. Atmosphere is also significantly improved in FONV. Fallout 3 was bland and boring. The world was gray and lifeless, almost all of it was not worth looking at.If anything, the exact opposite is true, in every way. In FO3 you could stand anywhere, look any direction, and see something awesome/interesting that makes you want to go explore it. On top of that, there are trees everywhere, the ground is well detailed with texture maps to make it look rocky, and debris is scattered everywhere: AN ACTUAL WASTELAND. In FONV, not only is 99% of the world barren/empty/poorly designed/bland/boring, but the textures are horrible, flat, and get blurry with nothing blocking them that it just looks horrible everywhere. The best view you'll ever find is an empty green hill - super realistic. Other things FONV improves is merging gameplay with storyline. Things you do in the game effect the storyline and quests, even down to things like the stats you picked.Not sure what you're referring to here, so I guess I have no comment for now. It also improved gameplay in tons of ways. No leveled enemies/loot, no stupid percentage based chances to do anything (because we all loved failing, reloading, failing and doing this until we succeeded), a lot of useless things from FO3 have been made useful (especially in hardcore mode) and the general FPS aspects of the game have been significantly improved.The percentage based fails were replaced with stat based fails. Its not much better to find out you don't have enough speech, have to reload, spam level, come back when you do, it might actually be worse. The FPS elements are horribly degraded, the default cross-hairs don't line up with where the freaking gun is aimed, the iron signs take up so much of the screen you're better off not even using them, but you have to if you want an accurate shot. They also force you into using the FPS/manual aim, VATS was one of the many things that made FO3 a unique game, why take so much focus away from it? If anything they should have worked on improving VATS, not manual aiming. The only downside is bugs, which will probably be fixed in the future anyway. Other than that, the game is superior in every way possible.The graphics aren't better, if anything they not only run far worse, but might actually look worse - far too many textures have no light/bump/normal maps, and the design of the world is empty and flat out bland. The story is worse, the gameplay is worse, the immersion is worse, etc. You must just be greatly amused by the stack of new items Maybe you should actually play both games before claiming to be qualified enough to judge and compare them both. Because clearly you have not played either of them, and if you did, it was not very much and/or you ignored all the important parts of them.I've played well over 100 hours of FO3, completing practically everything in the game. I haven't completed FONV yet, but I'm about 10 hours in, and haven't seen a single thing that was the least bit impressive yet. Though the disappointments have abounded. On top of that, after playing FONV for that time, and going back to FO3, practically every aspect of that game just made me want to quit NV and continue in FO3. PS. Both Fallout 3 and New Vegas are pretty mediocre compared to the STALKER games.Ah hahahaha. Well, you just proved how completely fail any point you could possibly attempt making is. The entire STALKER series is a joke, some of the worst game I've ever played - I'd call them FO3 wannabes, but I'm not sure which came first | |
STALKER came first, and Fallout 3/NV is the STALKER wannabe.
STALKER has better gameplay, less bugs, better story, better world, and is more atmospheric than pretty much any game ever. It's graphics are only above average, but it's lighting system is top notch. Anyway. The story in NV isn't that great. But saying it is "90% following a murderer" is wrong. It is closer to maybe 30-40% doing that. Also, in most cases, you do not need to ask for directions (and do tasks). You can find clues other places, or just continue on the road to New Vegas and skip everything. Also, the character creation process in FO3 was too long. This is why there is about 9000 different mods to shorten or skip it. Also, dirt does naturally filter water and remove radiation, and this process naturally happens. It is where we get all of our drinking water from. Hell, I remember making a water filter when I was like 8 in school made of rocks and dirt in a plastic bottle. That is how basic this stuff is. Which is why the entire story is a joke. They could have just broadcast on the radio instructions to make something like this, no need for fancy science devices. And, you probably have not found many quests in Fallout NV yet, and it seems to me you're comparing the small quests in Fallout NV to the biggest in FO3. Seems like a fair comparison. Also, list some quests that are as complex with multiple routes to take then. I will list one from Fallout NV. The quest starts with investigating a missing person. You talk around, and find out someone else went missing. You go to talk to him, he is dead and get attacked. He leaves you a clue to meet someone. You meet this person and discover some stuff. From here you can optionally do tons of different things. You can kill the person you was to save and frame the guy who hired you. (And optionally help the bad guys) You don't have to rescue the guy at all, and let the bad guys kill him. Then report this to the person who hired you. You can rescue the guy and take him to the person who hired you. Here the quest can end, or if your speech skill is enough to can continue it. You can with high medicine skill poison the bad guys drink. If you're good enough you can kill one of the bad guys and replace him. If you do these and do not turn the guy you was to rescue in (or pass the speech check). You can then wait for the bad guys to kill the guy, and trick them, revealing to everyone they are bad. This isn't even the most complex of quests in the game. Just one I can remember doing recently. Fallout NV has better replayability than F03 because the reputation system cannot be cheesed and exploited to let you do everything in one run through. Not only that, but in Fallout NV there is significantly different routes you can take. Not just "different dialog options". But entire different routes with different outcomes. How does killing a random criminal in the middle of nowhere relay to everyone else? No idea. Probably the exact same way it does in Fallout 3. Also, Fallout New Vegas has a lot more locations than FO3. Actually about twice as many. Strange how you claim FO3s map is more packed, when they are both about the same size, but Fallout NV has twice the amount of stuff in it. As for graphics. Pretty bad in both games to be fair. As for merging gameplay and story. It means gameplay elements effect storyline. In one quest, you have to collect peoples heads. Shoot them in the head, and it becomes mush, making you unable to collect it. In another you have to drag a corpse back to some people. Hell, even your actual stat choices effect a lot of the storyline. As for skill checks. It was designed that way on purpose. If you cannot pass a skill check. Too bad, you cannot pass it. Deal with it. You cannot reload and reallocate skill points, you cannot cheese your way past it. You're just not good enough to do something, so you cannot do it. This gives skills more importance than making guns deal more damage or medicine more effective, and again integrates gameplay and story much better. As for graphics. They are pretty much the same in both games. Hilariously bad. (Animations especially) | |