Inyourprime
Member
Yeah.
I know I one of those authors saying this isn't leading up to an announcement, but damn. A lot of threads about them lately bruh...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
How Obsidian's Underrated Sequel Became a Beloved Classic
- Thread starter Krakn3Dfx
- Start date
Yeah.
I know I one of those authors saying this isn't leading up to an announcement, but damn. A lot of threads about them lately bruh...
EmCeeGramr
Member
It's 2017 and people still believe you have to follow a straight line to New Vegas.
New Vegas's use of soft barriers is one of its best strengths. It's kind of diagetic while really rewarding replays to give yourself a new challenge
RenegadeXV8
Banned
"People who don't worship my favorite developer are grumpy assholes"
I think this post says more about you than the people who think Bethesda games are terrible RPGs, dude.
Yeah I really enjoyed playing the game and just wandering into the mountains or Northwards in the game and attemtping to bypass the Death Claws or other enemies and threats scattered about. Its totally doable if you're willing to die a lot and figure out a safe route or method.
Fata1moose
Banned
I really hope this gets a decent mod port to Fallout 4, because man is it an ugly game. Of course I'd like to see Obsidian make their own game with the Fallout 4 engine.
Affeinvasion
Member
Imagine if obsidian had been given the same time and resources as an internal studio...
There are literal invisible walls preventing you from climbing the mountains.
I guess you can grind your way through the Cazadores and Deathclaws by heading north at the start? Is there some other way to get to New Vegas I'm not remembering? It's been a long time since I've played.
Could you even port it? I don't think it would be as easy as moving morrowind to skyrim for example
XANDER CAGE
Member
everything bad about the moment to moment gameplay in New Vegas is carried over from certified "best developer" Bethesda's Fallout 3. New Vegas is beloved because it takes the framework of 3's open world and stretches way better writing over the top of it. It's equally dissatisfying to control as a Bethesda game but with ten times the storytelling pedigree, which ends up making it worth suffering through Fallout 3's nightmare action gameplay that feels like it was cobbled together by people who had never played a shooter in their life.
I don't think people need to worship Bethesda, who isn't even in my top 10.
What I do think is that people who do everything in their power to making it sound like Bethesda are talentless hacks and Obsidian are perfect waifus who can do no wrong need a reality check.
I modded New Vegas to be more like Fallout 3 because the shooting was so awful. I'm definitely not saying Fallout 3 was better. Fallout 4 is the first game Bethesda has made with anything approaching great gamefeel (and it's not surprising, Destiny's Hand Cannon Sandbox Designer Guy did their gun feel, before returning to Destiny 2).
It's a different engine, but it uses a lot of similar tools/structure because Bethesda knows the importance of their modding community.
I think it's doable, but it would need a ton of custom assets.
Depending on how you build yourself and where you go first, you can easily get past them before you gain your first level, and get into Vegas through the NCR camp. I do this pretty much every run now.
Also, you can completely ignore Vegas and do a ton of the quests in the area that are either not mandatory /pointed out by the game until well into the main quest.
While doable, it's clearly not what they want you to do. The entire world structure is still built to make you go a certain route. It limits the sense of adventure, I feel. Kinda like how Fallout 4 is like I NEED MY SON--sure, you can do other things, but it's clear they want you to beeline for your kid. Or like how Gears wants you to feel Super Serious about war, but it's also trying to be fun. It's just one of those things that doesn't work super great.
It is doable, and supported. As an RPG player, that is all you need care about.
The game clearly does not want you to do a pacifist run, but it fully supports it and is entirely doable.
Just rejiggering the dialogue system seems like it would be difficult
I am more concerned about the skill system to be honest.
One of my favorite things about FO3 was that you can really just pick a direction at the start and go exploring. No mountains or walls or Cazadores. New Vegas was the polar opposite so it was disappointing for me.
Yeah that's probably much worse
Alexander DeLarge
Member
I hope Obsidian is aware of the OpenMW/OpenCS project which is nearing completion (Morrowind is already completely playable and better than the original version). It'd allow them to make Bethesda-esque open worlds using an open source reimplementation of their technology (without the jank). http://openmw.org
I mean, they've gone back and done successors to Infinity Engine stuff, why not?
I mean, they've gone back and done successors to Infinity Engine stuff, why not?
EmCeeGramr
Member
The shooting is exactly the same except they added ironsights and rebalanced the absolutely broken damage resistance stuff and how VATS made you absurdly invincible in FO3.
They clearly want you to do whatever, the guidance in NV is for first time players. You don't have to do any of it.
Raven117
Member
Hey, I liked new Vegas as well, but really? We live in a post witcher 3 world. (and a few others)
You do still have rather a lot of people playing Fallout 4, though. At least on Steam
Alexander DeLarge
Member
Fallout 4 (4-5 year development time) metacritic score: 84
Fallout New Vegas (12-18 months, incredibly buggy at release) metacritic score: 84
???
Hardcore fans have every right to be upset that their roleplaying series is nothing more than a loot shooter with a defined protagonist and YES, YES, TELL ME MORE, SARCASTIC YES dialog options.
I'm not sure that 'possible' makes something supported. And I do think the game wants you to do a pacifist run, because it's literally built to respond to players who choose pacifism, which is one of the most common types of play styles in video games.
There's some mods for FO4 that tweak that a bit, so I think it's doable? I haven't really messed around with Creation Kit in a while. Most of my time is in Unreal lately.
It fucks up accuracy in basic shooting iirc, by making it more dependent on your gun skills. I haven't touched it in like 4 years so I can't be more specific than that. Sorry about that. I remember the mod I used, which was one of the most popular on the Nexus, made bullets go where you put them, which was a huge QOL improvement. The shooting felt nothing like Fallout 3's (which was in need of improvement, just like every bethesda game's combat is)
I got issues with Fallout 4. I do. Lots of 'em. If Bethesda put me in charge of the next Fallout game, it'd be a lot closer to what fans of the older games look for in a shooter, because my own interest in game design skews heavily towards social interaction with NPCs and choice n' consequence. But it has a 84, 87, and 88 on metacritic, while New Vegas has an 84, 84, 82. I don't care about metacritic scores--I'm the guy who thinks Binary Domain is incredible--but I do think that other people are obsessed with the metascore differences and really MAD that Fallout 4's is higher, for dumb reasons.
What I'm frustrated by is people who pretend that New Vegas is some underrated, amazing, perfect gem, when it's really a deeply flawed game that regularly has its weaknesses downplayed and its strengths overplayed, and always at the expense of two of the most popular games in the world, which have done some amazing things that are always downplayed just to make New Vegas look better than it is. That frustrates me. It feels disingenuous. I think people do it because if they take New Vegas on its own merits, the game has several clear shortcomings. It would be like trying to exaggerate Mass Effect's failings to make Alpha Protocol look good. Sorry, but Alpha Protocol has a lot of flaws. I love it to pieces, but I think it's important to be honest about why we like games, and maybe not try to tear down other games in the process.
Ah, yeah I see what you mean clearer now.
Yeah, that is more of an ideological divide and not a right/wrong.
New Vegas is designed more like older RPGs: there are just parts of it that either require a ton of skill or prior knowledge or min/maxing or require coming back later.
I prefer this approach because it means the world and your sense of progression feels more meaningful, but it does mean that it is less conducive to letting you explore things at your pace.
New Vegas is a better rpg easily. Whether it's a better game? Well then you have a discussion.
I don't think the Witcher 3 was as good an RPG as the Witcher 2.
If the intent was to restrict / stop that behavior, Obsidian could have done MUCH more. Like put a checkpoint that always turned you back. Or making the enemies impossibly hard until you completed the right quests.
Besides, the fact that all your quests respect your decision to just hop right on to Vegas without using the beaten path is proof enough.
Raven117
Member
Ah, I see what you are getting at.
Guess I never did get too involved with the ROLE play of RPGs....was more interested in the world (and progression) of RPGs.
Fallout New Vegas is indeed excellent.
Better RPG than The Witcher? I think that depends on what you think RPGs are about. I think Witcher games follow a narrower definition of RPG (you're still defining a character's relationship to the world around him, the only thing that matters in the definition of an RPG), and I think maybe they're better at giving you lots of ways to be specific kinds of Geralt. It's definitely a narrower game, but I think it's a lot better at things like character, dialog, and interesting choices.
One discussion I've had lately with friends about Arkane vs Looking Glass games is how it feels like Arkane tries to make every tool viable. You can't really put yourself in a position where you have to use a sub-optimal tool to function. A more obvious example of this is something like Human Revolution, which is like "yo, use the rebreather/heavy arms/wallpunch/hacking/invisiblity mechanics to get in. we accounted for every play style!" LGS games tended to have more naturalistic decision making, allowing players to express themselves in mechanics, but not providing players with ways to do things however they wanted.
I think this is sort of the... Doug Church (System Shock) vs Warren Spector (Deus Ex) design dichotomy.
Warren Spector came from tabletop games. So does Obsidian. And I think you can see a similar approach (Bethesda's games are more immersive sims like DE and SS than RPGs) in the different Fallout games.
There's a lot more 'options' to the cannibal quest in New Vegas (most of the quests in the game don't have near that amount of choice and are more like Fallout 3 quests in their structure), but most of them are meaningless options meant to facilitate any kind of play.
This results in a kind of meaningless expression--there's no resistance, no sense of anything being earned, no way to feel something about yourself through the mechanics you choose to employ. You can solve problems however you'd like, the end.
And I don't think that makes it great quest design, just complex quest design.
I hope my bit above this addresses my beliefs about that design decision.
I don't think Obsidian wants to restrict so much as had a clear way to do things but was okay with you going about it other ways. Like, as a designer, I really want players to do a specific thing, but if they really want to do something else, it's feasible within the mechanics. It's possible to play pistols only in plenty of shooters. It's a lot harder, and it's not how those shooters are meant to be played, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.
They clearly had a path they wanted players to take.
Bethesda's world design is dramatically better, because it has a bunch of quests that send you all the way across the map. Bethesda uses the main story as a way to take you through large fields full of distractions. They want you to get distracted, want you to explore, want you to find new things. Obsidian was like "hey, go to the right, then curve around, then get to New Vegas."
It's really hard to tell linear stories in open worlds, and Obsidian's solution was... like, I get it, but I wish the emphasis had been on exploring the open world more than going through a linear path. You can watch them just sort of give up on trying to do open worlds in the Fallout: New Vegas DLC. They were so interested in linear storytelling, the DLC became these largely linear exploration tubes, especially that last one. Could have been great, had some amazing narrative ideas, but was just... linear. And I love linear game design, but if I had to compare Lonesome Road (I think that was the name) to a properly linear game, it's... well, not great. It ends up in an unhappy middle ground.
RPGs are a lot of things to a lot of people. I remember someone once arguing with me that RPGs were only RPGs if they had a bestiary. Another person claimed that God of War's upgrade system made it an RPG.
GENERALLY, though, RPGs are games where players role-play. A lot of people think that means "playing a role," but if that were the case, every video game ever with a protagonist would be that. And that's clearly not the case. Roleplay as a concept comes out of improvisational acting; it's a thing actors do to learn how to act. They create roles, or improvise within those roles, rather than simply perform a script. And I think that's the core to what an RPG is: something that lets you define your character's relation to the world around them.
I don't know if that even can be considered a subjective opinion when it's so wrong.
How was Witcher 2 a better RPG than 3? I remember enjoying the combat more since it was hard as fuck in the v1.0, but other than that?
Ultimadrago
Member
Boy, do I agree with most of this. New Vegas ain't a classic of mine, while Obsidian has the potential to really visualize engaging setups (in other titles like Alpha Protocol, though I have more issues with that full package than compliments) .
Though I couldn't stand Fallout 4's storytelling in a similar boat. I'm not sure where I can feasibly see the series head from here after the poorly implemented daddy issues running the main story and lacking intrigue in the Synths (sans more entertaining, feelgood NPCs like Valentine). It ended up being several sides of unappealing mass blobs playing faction wars, just like New Vegas.
The base building, while an idea that could have made for an entertaining side activity, (surprise) ended up a mess that the player still had to babysit while out venturing. It's a system that had potential for player interaction and really messed the bed.
Not to be too off-topic, but I couldn't blame concern for the series' direction, even if I'm not in a camp that would want Obsidian to swoop it up. The combat mechanics took steps up, at least.
Mind you I think The Witcher 3 is the better overall game but I much preferred the actual RPG elements and the way they played out with the story more so than how things were handled in The Witcher 3. That's not saying they did it bad, I just think their prior game did it better.
Mr.Deadshot
Member
It's way better than FO3, but worse than 1+2. It's a great game but not Obsidian's best. In fact I liked most of Obsidian's other games more.
TheRedSnifit
Member
New Vegas is easily the best RPG. Incredible game.
Why are people even responding this guy
this is clearly a troll. i don't even believe someone could be so ignorant to say something as stupid as this - it's clearly intentional.
New Vegas isn't perfect, but saying they should strive to be like F3 is just wrong. And don't give me the "i can pick a direction and go anywhere in F3" bullshit, arbitrary walls requiring you to go through copypasted metros will always block you the same way as the "invisible walls" (two, easily avoidable) in new vegas
And saying Beyond the Beef is the only good quest in New Vegas is disingenuous at best. Return to Sender, Vault 11, The Survivalist, the entirety of Dead Money, Gabe's quest and plenty more of examples are miles better than anything bethesda scrapped for F3 and F4, together. And that's just the first examples coming to mind.
EmCeeGramr
Member
This is a bizarro world analysis of RPG design.
Giving a player different ways to express themselves through mechanics has meaning in and of itself; it's not just a means, it's also an end. That's what role-playing is about. It's the very core of Fallout.
TheRedSnifit
Member
I like how you highlight "Depending on your build" as though it's a bad thing.
It's especially bizarre given you go on to say:
Is gating content depending on your build good or bad? I'm confused.
wait how is F3's shooting better than NV?
Rickenslacker
Banned
I didn't have any of the Fallout baggage that fans of the series did going into Fallout 3, so I could just take it for what it was at the time. I didn't really have any expectations, so I enjoyed it for what it was.
Then I played New Vegas and it retroactively shattered any positive memory I could muster for 3 in just how much better it was in all regards that mattered to me. Loved it. Easily one of my favourite RPGs of the last decade and goes up in the pantheon of classics to me from the setting, freedom, play, and companions. I really should replay it one of these days, I miss Cass as a drinking partner.
Then I played New Vegas and it retroactively shattered any positive memory I could muster for 3 in just how much better it was in all regards that mattered to me. Loved it. Easily one of my favourite RPGs of the last decade and goes up in the pantheon of classics to me from the setting, freedom, play, and companions. I really should replay it one of these days, I miss Cass as a drinking partner.
I love Fallout New Vegas, I just wish people would stop tearing other games down and pretending it doesn't have flaws. Can you really love a game if you aren't willing to admit what it does poorly?
Just because you're mad doesn't mean I'm trying to make you mad.
I'm taking that one step further and arguing that the ability to do what you want only matters if there are situations where you can't as well.
If a game always lets you act how you want to act, it's not really true to life, is it? What I look for is contrast. I love that Fallout: New Vegas gives me low-int dialogue options, but when the game doesn't put me in a situation where that puts me at a disadvantage, I think that's bad RPG design. I believe, firmly, that choice only matters if there are moments where you can't choose. I need that contrast for it to mean anything. I need to go "oh, these guys fortified this base well, and the only options I have are ones I didn't build for." I feel like New Vegas tries to accommodate EVERYTHING, where I'd rather have dramatically different adventures depending on the character I'm playing as.
I'm not trying to force you to agree with me, but can you at least understand the logic I'm employing here?
Like how in new vegas you can do what you want, but in doing so you commit to a faction and you can't be the champion of every other faction like the usual bethesda games?
Also nice job ignoring everything i said
I am willing. But we have yet to actually get to that part.
It is not. It is bad in both. NV is better just by the sheer fact it came after.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Yeah, you have to ignore a ton of stuff to get to "NV has the same amount of choice as Bethesda Fallout."
I'm usually loathe to bring up RPG Codex, but their Fallout 4 review is a very in-depth exploration of Bethesda game design.
Gating content dependent on build = good
Open world design that is built like a nautilus spiral = bad
Less stat-based, more mouse-driven.
Committing to factions is one of the best things New Vegas does.
Pretty sure I disagreed with what you said, not ignored it. You're the one ignoring my good faith arguments to call me a troll.
I mean, I feel like I've at least expressed my perspective. If you feel it's done that well, fine, but I do think that things like its world design and invisible walls are a big problem. How are those not a flaw?
Isn't this review by that crazy guy who made that RPG about the roman-empire-but-not-really that was kind of... confusing and amazing at the same time? It's a great review.
I cut to new vegas for the first time in my last playthrough, and it wasn't that hard as I thought it was going to be
Oh did you use something like the No-Neos mod to counteract the stats then?
Raven117
Member
Sweet beejeebus. This is quite the post. Very well thought out. Are you a developer? Edit: You said you were. Edit Edit: Shit, I need to write a better response:
While I dont disagree with your definition of "RolePlay" that is limiting pretty much all JRPGS and many more strictly designed protagonists as decidedly not RPGs.
Regardless, Im not sure the distinction is all that important really; what is and is not an "RPG" from a player perspective. From a developer standpoint, I can see this distinction being much more important in how you go about designing how the game is played. Your Arkane vs the new Deus Ex is a very well taken point.
Witcher 3 let you define Geralt a little bit (and IMO incredibly well written as whatever option you chose, felt like something the character would do yet put a little of "you" in it. I thought it was brilliant), and Fallout New Vegas (and other Obsidian games) gives you many options to change your characters relation to the world. To then have Bethesda, where it seems you don't really affect the world at all (but it seems like you do for a bit).
I recognize the challenge in trying to tell a compelling story within the freedom of an open world. I thought Witcher 3 took such a huge step in this direction as the story and the side quests all work together to make the story "flow" within the open world.
TheRedSnifit
Member
The open world gates your route depending on your build. If you do certain builds, you can go straight to New Vegas.
I don't see how this is any different than any other gated content.
I dunno if he made any games, but he was the last notable personality from when Codex was worth reading and not just /pol/ lite.
Edit: You're thinking of a different guy. Bubbles didn't make Age of Decadence. That guy posts under Vault Dweller.
he is and is a pretty cool guy on twitter