I agree New Vegas is the better game from dlc, perks and choices but it also came out after 3 and it was made by the original fallout team so it makes sense. Now we wait for fallout 4.
-
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.
LTTP: Fallout 3 (or why I made a huge mistake in playing this after New Vegas.)
- Thread starter chaobreaker
- Start date
I agree New Vegas is the better game from dlc, perks and choices but it also came out after 3 and it was made by the original fallout team so it makes sense. Now we wait for fallout 4.
That you did OP, but people will be arguing about this probably for all time. Anyway I think Fallout NV stomps Fallout 3 all day everyday. Mostly because FNV felt like a believable place to me and F3 felt like Bethesda's Post Apocalyptic Theme Park in comparison. There seems to be no rhyme or reason why the DC wasteland is laid out like it is beyond Bethesda thought it would be cool to put in X regardless of if it made a lick of sense.
Solid Samus
Banned
I don't follow that Fallout 3 functions more like a sim. It's got fewer features than New Vegas to that end. In New Vegas, armor works like armor, I can craft bullets and guns, cook food and make drinks, there's a solid enough faction system in place, SPECIAL stats have more ingame relevance and context etc. etc. And I'd say it's a little dismissive to attribute Obsidian's gameplay improvements to mods, because at the time of the game's release, there weren't any new features that mods were doing better than NV's implementation besides survival mode, and it was ultimately up to Obsidian to implement those features anyway, something they didn't have to do going by Fallout 3's success without those features.
Fallout 3's open world is kind of actively disrespectful to the established lore and tone of the Fallout series but that's whatever, the game is solid on its own merits, I just don't understand your choice of words there. But beyond that, New Vegas definitely has more NPCs, named and unnamed both, pretty much everywhere you go. Settlements in NV actually feel like settlements most of the time, partly because they actually have decently sized populations, many of whom are named. Invisible walls are a bummer, but I'm not sure I'd say they were any worse than the Metro system and DC area were, being segmented and confusing as all hell to navigate.
ramoisdead
Member
It's true Nude Vegas is great but F3 had the best world and it was very atmospheric.
Both hold a special place in my gaming heart.
Both hold a special place in my gaming heart.
Same to me. FO3 is one of the best game I've vere played.
EmCeeGramr
Member
I've been playing both of them off and on recently and it's really tough playing FO3 at the same time. The DC interior is a disastrous maze of bullet sponges that aren't very interesting to fight unless you deliberately handicap yourself, and the writing and a lot of the quest design is so junky.
It's weird going through a quest like That Lucky Old Sun which seems so simplistic (just turn on some terminals in an old building, really), but it's wrapped in layers of backstory and lore and choices to piss off or gain favor with various factions, as well as containing the key to a hidden superweapon that pays off amazingly if you go that route.
Then you play through Blood Ties in FO3 and it's a fantastical concept that probably sounded really cool in their heads when they wrote it, but it just shows how badly done the world in FO3 is. A gang of cannibals is all following the lead of a guy who acts like a vampire and talks about THE HUNGER! And after you read his really stupid rules about "we don't eat people, we just choose who to murder and exsanguinate" you're expected to make a treaty between these literal murderers and the terrorized town in which they give up blood in exchange for not being killed. Every choice you have is basically a different way of proposing the idea of not killing people, and how this blackmail arrangement should happen. You get negative karma if you try to solve this through violence, because apparently someone read too many X-Men comics and decided that murdering people to eat them is just another misunderstood mutant power. It's an absolutely unbelievable scenario in which there's more cannibals living next to their victimized town, which is composed of five tin shacks on top of a crumbling bridge that looks like it's about to fall into a radioactive lake, which is obviously the best place to put a town.
It's weird going through a quest like That Lucky Old Sun which seems so simplistic (just turn on some terminals in an old building, really), but it's wrapped in layers of backstory and lore and choices to piss off or gain favor with various factions, as well as containing the key to a hidden superweapon that pays off amazingly if you go that route.
Then you play through Blood Ties in FO3 and it's a fantastical concept that probably sounded really cool in their heads when they wrote it, but it just shows how badly done the world in FO3 is. A gang of cannibals is all following the lead of a guy who acts like a vampire and talks about THE HUNGER! And after you read his really stupid rules about "we don't eat people, we just choose who to murder and exsanguinate" you're expected to make a treaty between these literal murderers and the terrorized town in which they give up blood in exchange for not being killed. Every choice you have is basically a different way of proposing the idea of not killing people, and how this blackmail arrangement should happen. You get negative karma if you try to solve this through violence, because apparently someone read too many X-Men comics and decided that murdering people to eat them is just another misunderstood mutant power. It's an absolutely unbelievable scenario in which there's more cannibals living next to their victimized town, which is composed of five tin shacks on top of a crumbling bridge that looks like it's about to fall into a radioactive lake, which is obviously the best place to put a town.
Solid Samus
Banned
The thing that gets me the most about Fallout 3's writing is that it's hardly conducive to quality head roleplaying right off the bat because the player dialogue options are usually pretty iffy. They imply a lot about your character that they shouldn't, they're often incredibly redundant, and they're usually boiled down to "Punk ass sarcastic teenager/Mentok the Mind-Taker/Evil Murderer sarcastic teenager who kills because LOL VIDEO GAMES/Jesus Christ Himself".
I can deal with pretty much everything else I find iffy about this game, but that alone has killed whole playthroughs for me. I mean, just observe this exchange and the dialogue options, and wonder in amazement at how Bethesda actually took home awards for this game's writing.
I can deal with pretty much everything else I find iffy about this game, but that alone has killed whole playthroughs for me. I mean, just observe this exchange and the dialogue options, and wonder in amazement at how Bethesda actually took home awards for this game's writing.
Soltype
Member
This was one of the bigger problems I had with 3 , I'm really going to miss Obsidian's writing in 4.
joecanada
Member
Yup new Vegas is just a watered down version of f3... Too crowded, too shiny, even more cheesy than usual for these games...
Still okay but not the experience of walking out of that vault you grew up in for the first-time....
Solid Samus
Banned
idk about that, Fallout 3's got that stinky cheese, and some of the characters and situations the main story funnels you through alone are pretty much more cheesy than even New Vegas's zaniest side characters. Think back to Dr. Lesko, to Mayor McCready, to the ever patriotic Nathan, to Ant-Agonizer and The Mechanist, to Grammy Sparkle, sheeeeit, the list goes on.
Sanctuary
Member
Yep. The atmosphere of FO3 was way better, it also had a few quests that were much more memorable than anything in NV. But, NV had better companions, a more realized world, much better writing all around and most quests were above the average quest in FO3. I didn't like it as much as FO3 initially though. It was extremely boring for the first two or three hours.
shacklesmcgee
Member
Fallout 3 is really the outlier for not being "crowded, shiny and cheesy" so....
I love Fallout 1&2 and this third one was a huge dissapointment. It just lack the dark sense of humor from the previous ones, no memorable characters, terrible dialogues and the combat...well, it's Bethesda combat. It's not a bad game by any means, but not a good Fallout game. Not even close. I can see why people likes it tho.
New Vegas is cool, i like it.
New Vegas is cool, i like it.
TheUnsunghero26
Member
In what way is New Vegas "watered down"?
joecanada
Member
All these games are cheesy but the radio stations were decent commentary on American extremists politics and the characters you mentioned were just meant to be comedic relief in a bleak world... However this is not a defense of video game writing, which is mostly terrible...
In comparison I can't name more than 2 NV characters
Blitzrules240
Banned
The main quest ruined the game for me...
and yet I'm probably buying Fallout 4 because it was a great game after the disappointment settled over.
Tranquility Lane is still one of my favorite gaming quest of all time though.
and yet I'm probably buying Fallout 4 because it was a great game after the disappointment settled over.
Tranquility Lane is still one of my favorite gaming quest of all time though.
Solid Samus
Banned
Some of the characters I mentioned are integral to the plot and provide most of their comic relief through pretty questionable means (particularly some pretty terrible dialogue here and there; Moira's incomprehensible stupidity, Nathan's inexplicable patriotism and spouting of jingoistic knowledge that nobody in the post apocalypse should even have, Lesko's stereotypical nerd voice and pseudotechnical babble, McCready's impossible society, etc.), and others just plain make no sense at times. shoot, there ain't nobody as cheesy as Moira Brown in any other game.
personally I can name absolute loads of NV characters, just as with Fallout 3 characters, but to each his own, I guess. I'm just saying, NV's zany characters are what you just described, comedic relief in an otherwise bleak world (and NV's zaniness still feels fairly reigned in and sensible in the context of the game world), whereas Fallout 3's zaniness isn't relief from much, considering that a good half of your interactions are innately zany in that game. It's all-around wacky and doesn't relent for too long at all.
Yeah I mean, I don't have much hope. Writing isn't one of those things where they can just go "oh snap, we should've had better writing." That's like a comedian saying "my jokes should've been funnier." If they could've written a funnier joke they would have.
I loved Fallout 3 when it came out. But even then, I knew it was flawed. Whatever technical criticisms I could say about it, I think my biggest issues is pacing in certain sections (in terms of main missions and progressing the map), as well as certain sections feeling tedious.
As others have said, I just found Vegas did a lot more right. At the same time, I can't hate on Fallout 3. Yeah it's dated, and it's flaws are a lot easier to see after time + the release of New Vegas. But the game also had really awesome side missions, and just things about the world I loved. No doubt playing it at release, means I can think of it a lot more fondly. But I still think there are things about it that still hold up today, regardless.
I wasn't a big fan of Skyrim. I thought all the side missions, towns, characters, and general writing, was much better in Morrowind, Oblivion and parts of Fallout. So my biggest fear is that they focus too much on making Fallout 4 a technically incredible/vast world, but drop the ball on filling that world with funny/creative/interesting characters/quests and locations. Skyrim felt vast to me, but also felt hollow. The world felt empty in many locations, and I generally didn't like the writing as much as their previous games (although Skyrims main quest was actually decent).
As others have said, I just found Vegas did a lot more right. At the same time, I can't hate on Fallout 3. Yeah it's dated, and it's flaws are a lot easier to see after time + the release of New Vegas. But the game also had really awesome side missions, and just things about the world I loved. No doubt playing it at release, means I can think of it a lot more fondly. But I still think there are things about it that still hold up today, regardless.
I wasn't a big fan of Skyrim. I thought all the side missions, towns, characters, and general writing, was much better in Morrowind, Oblivion and parts of Fallout. So my biggest fear is that they focus too much on making Fallout 4 a technically incredible/vast world, but drop the ball on filling that world with funny/creative/interesting characters/quests and locations. Skyrim felt vast to me, but also felt hollow. The world felt empty in many locations, and I generally didn't like the writing as much as their previous games (although Skyrims main quest was actually decent).
alexbull_uk
Member
I've never really been able to get into New Vegas for some reason, but FO3 just clicks really well for me.
A great game, IMO. I just wish it had a modding community the size Skyrim does. But I suppose we'll have to wait for FO4 for a Fllout game to get to that level.
A great game, IMO. I just wish it had a modding community the size Skyrim does. But I suppose we'll have to wait for FO4 for a Fllout game to get to that level.
I enjoyed FO3 in the beginning but never really cared to finish it since it got so damn repetitive and I didn't think DC was that fun to explore. In fact, I need to look up what happens and see if I ever did finish it or not.
New Vegas, on the other hand, is one of my favorite games still. It was buggy and I still despise the engine (preparing myself for FO4's engine already) but the setting and the story were great. I actually wanted to explore in that game and everything just clicked more for me than FO3. I loved the factions and everything about the universe and the gameplay was a lot better. Then once you add some good mods into the mix, it was hard to stop playing.
I can't imagine going back to FO3 after NV. I really hope FO4 is good and while gameplay is the most important, I hope it ends up looking decent for this generation since exploring a beautiful world is so much fun.
New Vegas, on the other hand, is one of my favorite games still. It was buggy and I still despise the engine (preparing myself for FO4's engine already) but the setting and the story were great. I actually wanted to explore in that game and everything just clicked more for me than FO3. I loved the factions and everything about the universe and the gameplay was a lot better. Then once you add some good mods into the mix, it was hard to stop playing.
I can't imagine going back to FO3 after NV. I really hope FO4 is good and while gameplay is the most important, I hope it ends up looking decent for this generation since exploring a beautiful world is so much fun.
joecanada
Member
It just doesn't distinguish itself enough from 3... It could be a big dlc add on of 3... I was grateful to get it for my fallout fix but it just wasn't bleak, post- apocalyptic enough...
You wander around and there's a big ass city in the middle of the map... You can spend hours in there with no danger or sometimes even excitement... Compare that to capital wasteland with all the DC landmarks and completely surrounded with the most dangerous areas, it's just not very interesting
onken
Member
The way they both handle level scaling is not ideal. Thanks to the huge level cap you can pretty much 100 every stat in NV and they compensate by filling the landscape with the hardest enemies. I remember exploring one area near the start later on and I fought something like over a dozen adult deathclaws within a few minutes, it was completely ridiculous. Also the clip brushes in NV are WAY worse, even outside of cities. Oh you want to scale that small hill? Sorry you'll have to take a massive detour around a mountain range instead kthxbye. NV was certainly deeper and better written, but was clearly made on a lower budget and was way jankier (not to mention the ton of quest breaking bugs, thank god I played on PC). The DLC was also awful (big mountain was ok, I guess).
Really, I find it hard to rank one over the other.
Really, I find it hard to rank one over the other.
Zoso
It's been a long time, been a long time, been a long lonely lonely lonely lonely lonely time.
I love every main Fallout game. Some for different reasons than others, but they're all terrific games. I think Bethesda did a great job at reviving the franchise and it's pretty impressive for their first outing. Hopefully they take some of the lessons they've learned from FO3 & NV and apply them to FO4.
I especially enjoyed the Capital Wasteland in 3. Had a really unique atmosphere and was a lot of fun to explore. It probably helped that I used to live near Washington D.C. and was pretty familiar with the area. Seeing places like Arlington Cemetery, Georgetown, L'Enfant Plaza, and all the monuments/memorials in game was such a treat.
I'm actually replaying FO3 for the first time with mods. Besides all the graphical mods that make it look awesome, the FO3 Wanderers Edition mod basically turns on super hardcore mode. Adds player needs, rebalances combat and leveling, adds lots of "survival" features, and generally makes the game way more immersive. It also comes with a ton of options so you can turn off anything you don't like. I ended up tweaking all the settings to my liking. It really makes a lot of good changes and I'm loving it so far.
I especially enjoyed the Capital Wasteland in 3. Had a really unique atmosphere and was a lot of fun to explore. It probably helped that I used to live near Washington D.C. and was pretty familiar with the area. Seeing places like Arlington Cemetery, Georgetown, L'Enfant Plaza, and all the monuments/memorials in game was such a treat.
I'm actually replaying FO3 for the first time with mods. Besides all the graphical mods that make it look awesome, the FO3 Wanderers Edition mod basically turns on super hardcore mode. Adds player needs, rebalances combat and leveling, adds lots of "survival" features, and generally makes the game way more immersive. It also comes with a ton of options so you can turn off anything you don't like. I ended up tweaking all the settings to my liking. It really makes a lot of good changes and I'm loving it so far.
Soodanim
Gold Member
I love Fallout 3. But I don't think OP is wrong. I probably agree with most points, but regardless I have a lot of time for F3. I've made perfect characters twice and finished good and bad karma runs. I think I smashed my previous play time for a single game when 3 came along. It was my first Fallout and Bethesda game, so I fell in love with it.
After playing New Vegas, the speech checks are quite badly done in 3. A % chance of passing? Open to abuse from reloading, and doesn't make that much sense. I guess it works in a "Everyone could have a different experience" sort of way, but the skill checks in NV are FAR superior.
Tale of Two Wastelands
This mod takes all of your F3 files and makes them into a giant mod for New Vegas. The result is Fallout 3 in the New Vegas engine (NV is still there, hence the name), and although I'm only about an hour into my current run of it, I am convinced that this is the way to play. You can even convert the speech checks into skill checks. But just to point out the changes in NV, I'm currently doing a Hardcore mode run where Survival is a main skill... In Fallout 3. It suits me perfectly, because when I go and get Dogmeat my character will be a true survivor, roaming and staying alive.
After playing New Vegas, the speech checks are quite badly done in 3. A % chance of passing? Open to abuse from reloading, and doesn't make that much sense. I guess it works in a "Everyone could have a different experience" sort of way, but the skill checks in NV are FAR superior.
This is a good way of putting how I feel, too. The engine improvements were nice, but I just wasn't drawn into it like 3. I gave up on side quests and exploring and finished the main game just to end it in the end, which is unlike me. Which is why I want to take a minute to mention a mod I recently installed after I finished my first NV playghrough:
Tale of Two Wastelands
This mod takes all of your F3 files and makes them into a giant mod for New Vegas. The result is Fallout 3 in the New Vegas engine (NV is still there, hence the name), and although I'm only about an hour into my current run of it, I am convinced that this is the way to play. You can even convert the speech checks into skill checks. But just to point out the changes in NV, I'm currently doing a Hardcore mode run where Survival is a main skill... In Fallout 3. It suits me perfectly, because when I go and get Dogmeat my character will be a true survivor, roaming and staying alive.
I should hope so 100 years after the bombs dropped in an area that didnt get hit people would somewhat have their shit together.
Tale of Two Wastelands fixes some of your issues with game balance, weapon balance, armor balance and such. Basically ports over Fallout 3 intp the Fallout New Vegas Engine, it has made the game a lot more enjoyable.(Although modding is more of a pain in the ass with this mod)
Although my main issues with this game is that theres basically hardly any moral ambiguity to it, and the fact that the evil characters dialogue seems like it was written by Donte
New Vegas is the better game by far, but if youre interested in replaying it, Tale of Two Wastelands is probably the best way too play Fallout 3
Although my main issues with this game is that theres basically hardly any moral ambiguity to it, and the fact that the evil characters dialogue seems like it was written by Donte
New Vegas is the better game by far, but if youre interested in replaying it, Tale of Two Wastelands is probably the best way too play Fallout 3
shacklesmcgee
Member
have you ever played Fallout 1 or 2?
The only thing that Bethesda done right with FO3 is the atmosphere. Beside that, they done only terrible job all around, showing how they're being talentless hack who can't live up the premise of the ever unique setting of Fallout series.
And seriously, I rather have interesting character like Robert House rather than a mere atmosphere.
Those kind of complaint never gets old lol.
And seriously, I rather have interesting character like Robert House rather than a mere atmosphere.
It's a while since I played both games, it's just what I remember. I think New Vegas tried to be too realistic in terms of scale/world building at times, for its own good. I remember the Boomer location barely had any NPCs in proportion to its scale. I just didn't enjoy the two minutes walks from unique character to unique character all the time. Maybe if it had some nice vistas but we're talking about Fallout. That location absolutely wasn't that bad, though. As already said, that RNC airport was probably one of the worst. I also remember the location with the Great Khans that basically had nothing to it, or that super mutant village. Why did that house even have multiple floors? Was a pleasant surprise and a disappointment at the same time. The locations within the Hoover Dam were also one of the worst. Those halls were huge, probably spent several hours trying to find anyting worthwhile without success. Fallout 3 maybe didn't have many different clans/tribes that played an important role but I really liked Megaton, handful of unique characters and still compact. Rivet City was similar with all its merchants and unique characters. Then there was this location with Harold which was also very compact and actually beautiful to look at and therefore a great change of pace regarding that huge, dead open world. Little Lamplight comes to mind as well.
Playing New Vegas, it usually felt like the people behind it were more concerned about making the world look realistic instead of being fun to explore which never makes any sense when your engine and graphics is this outdated and when you have no access to a horse or vehicle to speed things up. Not saying Fallout 3 did a perfect job.
Which is totally not the intention behind the (original) Fallout series.
The first two games were very much tongue-in-cheek and that's why NV is a truly worthy successor to the series. Obsidian just got the tone and the lore right.
I dunno from what I remember Fallout was pretty bleak, I might even say the bleakest of the series. Sure it had its tongue-in-cheek moments, but they were pretty subtle from what I remember. It wasn't until that overrated Fallout 2 that they went all crazy(to the games detriment in my opinion) with it.
I'm with you
A bunch of weird decisions aside (lookin' at you, generically heroic East Coast BoS), I thought Fallout 3 was an admirable attempt at bringing back a classic franchise and quite faithful to the series' core concepts. I still prefer New Vegas for a multitude of reasons, but I recognize it owes owes almost as much to FO3 as it does the the classic games.
Phoenix944
Member
I prefer FO3 setting over NW, but I've liked both. Maybe I should buy and play the last 2 DLC of NW before FO4 (are they good ?)
I'd like to go back to FO3 a bit but I have that weird bug every time I enter my house (game freeze), I think I've stocked too many items in this house. But I can't help my habits to keep and store every little shit I found...
I'd like to go back to FO3 a bit but I have that weird bug every time I enter my house (game freeze), I think I've stocked too many items in this house. But I can't help my habits to keep and store every little shit I found...
The first one was just pretty short so that there wasn't enough room for wacky factions and characters, beside the Children of the Cathedral.
New Vegas never gripped me quite like Fallout 3 had. The opening sequence of Fallout 3 made me fall in love with my own character, for example, yet I could never create a character in New Vegas that I felt it was the "me" version of this other world.
New Vegas felt both more competent technically (which I expected completely given that it is a sequel and therefore never valued it much), but also the story lacked some heart, I guess. On Fallout 3 I felt like I was actually making a difference on this bleak horrible world (tho the ending only makes sense if you bump your head on the wall to cause brain damage enough to forget that your sacrifice was pointless).
New Vegas, I was like, just kind of agreeing or disagreeing with NPCs and then stuff happened, but nothing really made me feel bad... or good.
-
But I'm always willing to give New Vegas another go, but here's my problem, help me out GAF: I bought the New Vegas version for PC with a buttload of DLCs, the problem is that they all activate at the beggining of the game, which I think it screw up the pacing a lot. Like, I leave the doctor office and then comes this shower of guns, stuffs and quests and it makes the beggining too overwhelming. Is there a mod that lets the DLCs activate later or do I just turn them all off?
New Vegas felt both more competent technically (which I expected completely given that it is a sequel and therefore never valued it much), but also the story lacked some heart, I guess. On Fallout 3 I felt like I was actually making a difference on this bleak horrible world (tho the ending only makes sense if you bump your head on the wall to cause brain damage enough to forget that your sacrifice was pointless).
New Vegas, I was like, just kind of agreeing or disagreeing with NPCs and then stuff happened, but nothing really made me feel bad... or good.
-
But I'm always willing to give New Vegas another go, but here's my problem, help me out GAF: I bought the New Vegas version for PC with a buttload of DLCs, the problem is that they all activate at the beggining of the game, which I think it screw up the pacing a lot. Like, I leave the doctor office and then comes this shower of guns, stuffs and quests and it makes the beggining too overwhelming. Is there a mod that lets the DLCs activate later or do I just turn them all off?
chaobreaker
Member
I would have to chuck but I'm sure you can disable individual DLC on steam itself. Go to the steam properties for New Vegas and see if you disable the preorder bonuses.
EDIT: Yep, you can remove the preorder bonuses if you want but I would highly recommend keeping all the other DLC. I think one of them increases the cap and adds more to the vanilla game.
ferrasvansen
Member
I loved Fallout 3, was the only game that kept me hooked non stop for a week. When it came out I was very sick, a mysterious virus left me bedridden as my legs would not work. I was so engrossed I forgot I was sick and by the time I had done every quest I was recovering. I'm so excited for tonight's Fallout 4 gameplay reveal that I'm planning an all nighter, playing Fallout 3 leading up to the 3AM presser. The absolute desolation interspersed with little communities really endeared to me, my companions by my side added to the atmosphere. For me Fallout 3 will always rank highly in my all time list, sure it had bugs, tons of them and some quests were bland but I loved it and had such good fun.
Le_Samourai
Banned
I prefer Fallout 3 to New Vegas, way better world.
Maybe. I personally think Fallout 2's wackiness has made people forget that Fallout was much more down to earth or at least much more subtle with the jokes. Though maybe my grudge against Fallout 2 is playing with my memory of Fallout a bit. Fallout 2 was guilty of a lot of the criticism people(myself included) are leveling at Fallout 3(stuff thrown in for giggles and not fitting the tone of the world/previous game(s)) they were just able to wrap it in a better written package.
New Vegas is still the only "Bethesda-Style" open world RPG I actually completed. I feel like its advantage over those games is that it actually presents a somewhat believable setting populated by somewhat believable characters, shaped and motivated by its own intrinsic forces and values. It's not nearly as good at this as something like PoE of course, but at least it reaches a decent baseline. On the other hand, all the Bethesda games feel like the world is built for the express purpose of offering a set of suitably epic adventures and quests to the player.
Whitman's Ghost
Banned
I can't agree with a lot of people on certain aspects of these games. They are too janky for me in the end. I needed all the graphics mods I could get to tolerate the weird engine--again I came late to the party for these--and even then I just couldn't really get immersed into either world very well after about 20 hours or so. For the time I played I did have fun.
Don't get me wrong there were parts I REALLY enjoyed in each of them but the engine needs to be better. Needs to be able to handle a story and scripted moments better along with a lot more detail and draw distance. Some of the writing is just bad and at times. Overall, I had fun exploring the game with all the new textures and guns and stuff.
That early era music mod for New Vegas was also amazing and totally made the radio tolerable. By the time I got to the end of these games I was no longer in their world really. I was tired of it and thought the crucial storytelling sequences were lacking or fundamentally too hokey for me to care about.
Don't get me wrong there were parts I REALLY enjoyed in each of them but the engine needs to be better. Needs to be able to handle a story and scripted moments better along with a lot more detail and draw distance. Some of the writing is just bad and at times. Overall, I had fun exploring the game with all the new textures and guns and stuff.
That early era music mod for New Vegas was also amazing and totally made the radio tolerable. By the time I got to the end of these games I was no longer in their world really. I was tired of it and thought the crucial storytelling sequences were lacking or fundamentally too hokey for me to care about.
Whitman's Ghost
Banned
This. These locations just started becoming like some amusement park map. Nothing was scaled well and everything started to become comically thrown together. I had most of my fun the first ten hours. After that you start realizing how terribly unrealistic it all is even though it is trying in some way. The journey up into the mountains was just laughably bad IMO and the whole mutant house was about my last straw. I never played much more after that.
I honestly think 3 did a better job for me overall even though I did really like the casino area and a couple others in New Vegas. This engine needs to do a lot more to get me to come back to it though. I cannot even imagine playing this on a PS3 or something. It already looked super dated to me with all the high-end mods.
SchrodingerC
Member
Hold the fuck on, if there's a discussion about the cheese in Fallout we need to have a talk the LARPing Slavers, the Legion. When NPCs were talking about the Legion, they had sounded intimidating and threatening, but then you meet Vulpes Inculta and his merry band; all that anticipation just faded away. Even after meeting Caesar, the Legion never became the threatening force NPCs had often proclaim to be.
Honestly, the most threatening force in both games are the Deathclaws. The ultimate mistake walking into Quarry Junction...
Anyways, I like both Fallout games and I hope for the best for Fallout 4
Honestly, the most threatening force in both games are the Deathclaws. The ultimate mistake walking into Quarry Junction...
Anyways, I like both Fallout games and I hope for the best for Fallout 4