7 ms·

I love how they decided to embrace the fact it is a "fan work" and diverge from established 1&2 canon when the story calls for it (ya know unlike a certain comp

• wruza 10y ago
  Tbh, fnv was not that bad even though I started it with negative bias.
  • vomitcuddle 10y ago
    FNV was developed by Obsidian Entertainment (founded by ex-Black Isle folks), not Bethesda Game Studios.
  • celerity 10y ago
    It's funny that New Vegas stands out from the lot; turns out it had some of the original Interplay/Black Isle people working on it. I learned this from a Tyranny AMA on Reddit...
  • Kiro 10y ago
    What exactly is the difference between NV and F3? Looks the same to me. How can it be so much better?
    • eponeponepon 10y ago
      Separate (edit: and more interesting) story, better writers, and less fan-service (or so I'm told). All that said, 3 and 4 are still quality games. There's nothing all that wrong with "Oblivion + guns" in my view ;)
      • kbart 10y ago
        "All that said, 3 and 4 are still quality games. There's nothing all that wrong with "Oblivion + guns" in my view ;)" Actually, I can't help but feeling that Bethesda games treat me like an idiot and hold my hand all the time. I hate that "special snowflake-retard" handling and couldn't finish any of their games, even though I really loved these beautiful worlds (Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout3).
    • SXX 10y ago
      They "look" the same, but difference as big as between "Fallout Tactics" and "Fallout 1 / 2". Obsidian Entertainment are very good at few things that turn original games into the cult: world and locations lore, characters and storytelling.
      • wolfspider 10y ago
        Fallout Tactics was my favorite by far which would coincidentally make a great A/R remake...bring back the tabletop games!
        • landryraccoon 10y ago
          If you liked Fallout Tactics I would give Wasteland 2 a try. It's a squad based tactical game in the same genre.
    • detaro 10y ago
      What do you mean by "look the same"? If it's really just graphics, well yeah, the engine is more or less the same, but they are quite different games. As someone who prefers FNV: FNV is a lot grittier and fits better to earlier Fallouts that way. It leaves the player more choices (more companions, more decisions in quests that influence the story, just more stuff to do) and IMHO tells the grander story. Great DLC stories. Hardcore mode helps against the RPG-typical issue that the player character turns into a demi-god the environment doesn't react properly to. It has a few more potentially game-breaking bugs, which is annoying, and you can tell that they planned for more content that they weren't given the time to finish, most other critiques IMHO apply to both games (graphics aren't great by modern standards, at some point you look to hard at the world and immersion just breaks, enemy AI and other mechanics don't help in that regard) That said, you can get them for 10 bucks each with DLCs, so if you have the time it's worth trying both.
      • matt_o 10y ago
        Good points. I'd just like to add two more points: FNV's storyline is a lot more morally ambiguous and there's a lot more humor in it. This moral ambiguity is present in most Obsidian games and it makes for a completely different experience when compared to the typical "hero saves the world" storyline. In FO3 it's pretty clear who the good and bad guys are, whereas in FNV it gets muddy very fast. This is pronounced at points where you're to make a choice - in FO3 it's very easy whereas in FNV you're stuck asking yourself "Is this really good/bad? Should I be helping this NPC? Am I really on the right side in this? What if they're manipulating me?." As for the humor part - FNV is more in line with the tongue in cheek style of F1 and F2. Yeah, the world burned to hell, why not spend the day chasing down a telepathic mole rat?
        • gsnedders 10y ago
          What I find sad is the fact that there was a lot of Legion content cut which would've made them seem less like a bunch of brutes, and hence the obvious go-to bad guys which they come across as in F:NV. The empire behind the front line is meant to be secure (read: no raiders), have plenty of electricity, water, and food, even if the inhabitants have comparatively little freedom compared with the NCR.
    • mrighele 10y ago
      As others have pointed out, New Vegas has a better main story. In fact not only the story of Fallout 3 is a bit "meh", but if you stick to the main quest, you can finish the game pretty quickly. And tunnels. Lot of metro tunnels That said, you can wander around the wasteland and find a lot of nice subquests and hidden nuggets. In this regard, F3 really looks like Oblivion with guns, since in my opinion that game had the same exact issues (lame main story, beautiful side quests). NV's DLCs are also better in my opinion.
    • mysterydip 10y ago
      I had the same reaction (having played FO3) when my friend kept going on about how NV was so much better. I picked it up on a sale and had to agree. I can't pick a single "smoking gun" but in a way it's a "death by a thousand cuts" sort of thing: incremental improvements everywhere that, as a whole, add up to a much better experience. Color, atmosphere, lore, quests, etc. According to steam, I have 100 hours logged in FO3. I have 240 in NV.
    • FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
      Fallout NV had a superior narrative and more complex characters. The writing was superb and often times hilarious. Quests were much more engaging and thought-provoking and could be resolved in novel ways and didnt fall into the WoW trap of go here, kill baddie, collect reward. The choices were also non binary. Decisions in Fallout 3 often had you pick between a selfless saint or a psychopathic, mustache-twirling dick, while NV offered shades of grey, similar to the Witcher 3. Also like the Witcher 3, when you made decisions, there were actual changes in the game world and the consequences were often unexpected. And the DLC's foe NV were amazing, especially the sci-fi themed one. To be fair, Fallout 3 had a more immersive environment and atmosphere. It captured the setting and feeling of a post apocalyptic world. You dont feel as compelled to follow the game's questline... exploring the world was more satisfying. Bethesda and Rockstar have a penchant for making games where you can have so much fund just walking around. I often times wish that a colloaborarive rpg between comapnies could be made. Obsidian would do quest design, CD Project Red would do the writing, Bioware would do the voice acting and character design, FromSoftware would do the world-building map design and lore, Platinum games is responsible for gameplay, Square Enix would provide the music, Naughty Dog handles graphics and motion capture, Blizzard would do the QA, Bethesda would do the mod kit, and Valve would be the publisher....
      • mgv11 10y ago
        You have really thought about the collaboration! And yes that would amazing setup.
      • erikb 10y ago
        And Bill Gates does the funding.
      • frost_knight 10y ago
        Have From Software do the combat engine as well.
        • FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
          I much prefer the sublime perfection that is Platinum Games. Bayonetta's gameplay is damn near perfect. It strikes the perfect chord between stylish/beautiful and challenging.
    • Kurtz79 10y ago
      I thought F3 was a pretty good "reimagining" of the originals, in terms of adapting the mechanics for modern audiences (especially VATS), and the visuals were spot-on. But it lacked the quirky humor and characters that were part of the originals just as much, as well as how the world reacts to your build and actions. I remember that if you set your INT stat in FO2 low enough, basically EVERY character in the game treats you like an idiot, making most of the quests impossible to finish normally. The exception would be a "village idiot" NPC, with which a normal character has limited dialogue options, but a low int character can have an erudite conversation... FO1/2 are full of touches like that. It is admittedly much harder to program this flexibility in a fully voiced/animated/scripted 3D game, but NV came much closer to capture this aspect of the originals.
      • jhbadger 10y ago
        Courses for horses, but I couldn't stand the "humor" of the Interplay Fallouts (as it was, there was still a fair amount of that in the Bethesda ones -- it really wasn't taking the horror of a radioactive wasteland seriously). It was even worse in Interplay's Neuromancer game -- nothing destroys a dark cyberpunk feel more than a stupid joke.
        • int_19h 10y ago
          But that's the thing - Fallout wasn't supposed to be dark. The entire setting is firmly and blatantly tongue in cheek, starting with the very fundamental "nuclearpunk" premise.
          • kbenson 10y ago
            Yes, and it should be fairly obvious by the entire UI the Pip-Boy 2000 sports. Cutesy 50's style caricatures jar with the gritty situation for humor. Fallout has always had that undercurrent of absurdism in everything that rears its head to good comical effect. One of the things that I think made the third game not quite as good is that the absurdity from the characters are downplayed quite a bit, while the visuals are played up. The presentation feels uneven.
      • 10y ago
    • xenihn 10y ago
      I don't have the link handy, but there's a good Youtube review that compares the two games. One thing that stood out from his comparison was how Obsidian put in farms with livestock and crops to show where food came from, while F3 didn't have anything like this.
    • novembermike 10y ago
      The F3 world is built around points of light. You've got Nuketown, the aircraft carrier, the Brotherhood fort, the Towers etc, but they're operated by different groups that don't really interact with each other in a meaningful way. NV is built around a narrative world. The NCR is coming from the west, the Legion is coming from the east and New Vegas represents a third powerful entity. Almost every settlement is defined by their relationships to these groups and it brings the world together. The gameplay may be similar but the worlds are very different.
  • lsadam0 10y ago
    Honestly, I enjoyed FNV more than FO3 and FO4.
    • enraged_camel 10y ago
      FO4 isn't even Fallout anymore. They took out most of the RPG elements (deep character customization, meaningful dialogue, etc.) and turned it into a shooter. It's a really good game on its own right, but I wish they hadn't called it Fallout.
  • venomsnake 10y ago
    Does the name Chris Avelone rings a bell:) Like the original creator of Fallout 1 and 2. Also the backbone of the New Vegas was Van Burren which was plotted and outlines back in the early 00s. And now I have to replay FNV, VtMB and KOTOR2 to immerse myself in the obsidian writing.
    • rincebrain 10y ago
      Van Buren wasn't exactly the backbone of FNV - they took some elements from it here and there, but the overarching story was mostly distinct. (The biggest thing they probably took was setting it in the southwest.)
      • xenihn 10y ago
        IIRC Caesar's Legion came from VB.
        • rincebrain 10y ago
          Yes, Caesar's Legion and the NCR-BoS war (and, albeit through heavy changes, Joshua Graham) came from VB. My statement was intended to convey that most of the underlying plot did not come from VB; just a number of particularly meaty bones, rather than the spine.
• unixhero 10y ago
  English question - What do you refer to as "canon" in this regard?
  • wmil 10y ago
    "biblical canon" is "a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine" Entertainment series with many entries inevitably have internal conflicts. So series writers choose which stories are considered to be 'true' going forward. For instance there were 30 years of Star Wars novels that established many new characters and events that came after the movies. Disney declared them all non-canon. So in the new movies none of those characters exist and none of those events happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)
    • BEEdwards 10y ago
      It's a dangerous gambit too, because when Disney did that they did it to make it simple for the kids, but lost me as an adult long time star wars fan, because those shitty books and stories I read and spent time on are just make believe make believe...
      • freehunter 10y ago
        I don't think they did it to make it simple for the kids, but rather the Expanded Universe was massive and relatively uncontrolled. Even George Lucas himself said he considers the EU to be a different world than his own movies, and that he doesn't read the novels.
        • unixhero 10y ago
          Interesting discussion on the Star Wars universe. Myself, I prefer the murky old corners of the Alpha Quadrant, fending off treacherous Cardassian freighters in the Trek Universe.
        • SerLava 10y ago
          Yeah the EU is almost a free for all. Plus if they were going to follow the EU, some nerds would come out and spoil major plot points of every single new Star Wars movie.