Fallout: New Vegas reviews roundup #5
- Thread starter WorstUsernameEver
- Start date
For me it's kind of mixed. The first time you enter the subways it's striking, especially because of how perfectly set up the first subway tunnel is. The same goes for a lot of places. The first time you step out onto the Mall is great, the first time you step out of Vault 101 is really striking, etc, etc.
On the other hand, all that wears out its welcome really quickly. The subways get really tedious and bland, the ruins on the mall stop being striking and start being really annoying to navigate around when you have quests in the area, and large, sweeping vistas of the wasteland lose their charm after the first because there's really nothing interesting to see. The problem with FO3, for me, is that after you get past these really big moments there's not really anything substantial there.
On the other hand, all that wears out its welcome really quickly. The subways get really tedious and bland, the ruins on the mall stop being striking and start being really annoying to navigate around when you have quests in the area, and large, sweeping vistas of the wasteland lose their charm after the first because there's really nothing interesting to see. The problem with FO3, for me, is that after you get past these really big moments there's not really anything substantial there.
Morrowwind defiantly fits this, Oblivion (or as Marten says, "Oblibion") and Fallout 3 not so much.
Totally! I was always game for yet another tedious and bland Metro Crawl. Better yet, nothing bets finding my 40th Power Station with a work bench full of worthless loot. I still find it amazing that dumps like Girdernshade has more quests and background to them than places that could have been potential interesting like Fort Bannister
ZeaLitY
First time out of the vault
Ausdoerrt said:
My brain is full of fuck. These are shit reviews. Just, wow.
You can't have it both fucking ways. It's "realistic and immersive" and yet "kooky and cartoonish", and meanwhile New Vegas has to throw in a Wild Wasteland perk just in case any of these "realistic" people get offended by a bit of humor.
Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid.
korindabar said:
Here's the thing, and it's why (dumb) reviewers like Bethesda. Fallout 3 clearly has more striking visuals. Megaton is a lot more aesthetically striking than any town New Vegas has to offer.
That said, Bethesda has pretty much been all-fluff, no meat with its games. Megaton looks cool sure, but the aesthetics in the end don't offer much, quality-wise. The Megaton "choice" seemed so utterly vapid--be a shining paragon of virtue or be nerfaiously evil. Gee, that's a hard decision to make? Such a joke. Plus the town was extremely annoying to navigate, and didn't make sense design-wise.
Compare that to New Vegas, where most of the moral choices you make are very difficult ones. It's choices mired in the grays of morality and ethics. And that's what the core of what Fallout has been: with humanity brought to the brink of desperate destruction, there's never a perfect solution. Bethesda's vision of that was laughable.
And the subway in FO3 being engaging? That was by far the most annoying thing about the game. Another thing that ticked me off was that FO3 was far more linear. There are certain "cut-off" points where you gotta get to a decent level to maneuver through. In New Vegas, I was able to get to the Strip at a really low level, carefully using the terrain to sneak past some tricky points.
Oh and I love the weapon choices in New Vegas. Part of the fun in Fallout 2 was all the choices in weapons, and weapons mods. In Fallout 3 I had to use the Chinese Assault Rifle for the majority of the game. Lame.
yukatan said:
Without Fellout, Fallout 3's actual environment is UGLY as sin. Even with Fellout, the landscape of Fallout 3 is nowhere near as striking as the landscape of Fallout: New Vegas.
I did like Fallout 3's art design for the exteriors of locations. There really were some beautiful landmarks - Tenpenny Tower from a distance, the Anchorage Memorial, the statues buttressing the bridge in the Bethesda Ruins. The ruined overpasses were a nice touch as well. However, the INTERIORS of these places were all the same. This is where NV kicks FO3 in the ass. Inside buildings in Fallout 3, everything looks the same, whether you're in Rivet City or a Satcom Array in the opposite corner of the map. It's all metal ugliness and clutter.
sampson70
Still Mildly Glowing
I also enjoy the locations in FO3...so what locations in NV do you find more interesting?....anyone?Gaddes said:
Not me. I just found the always same boring shit that felt like it was there, because the player needs it and not the gameworld.
TwinkieGorilla
This ghoul has seen it all
Really? Surely we differ in what is "interesting" then.
For the most part (there were of course exceptions) Fallout 3 amounted to "Oh, cool...yet another randomly placed location lacking an interesting story, quests, or interesting NPCs but plenty of scrap metal and empty boxes." But yeah, that's cool if you prefer seeing skeletons in cages with party hats in buildings filled with feral zombies. That's pretty rewarding storytelling there.
Gameradar 9/10
It's badly written and not very interesting well atleast until you are on page three. But see for yourself.
http://www.gamesradar.com/xbox360/f...2010102213534158024/g-2009050816317271026/p-3
Scroll down a little.
It's badly written and not very interesting well atleast until you are on page three. But see for yourself.
http://www.gamesradar.com/xbox360/f...2010102213534158024/g-2009050816317271026/p-3
Scroll down a little.
TwinkieGorilla
This ghoul has seen it all
Comforting to know that anybody's retarded younger cousin can get a job in gaming journalism. Great job understanding Fallout, brother!
What all these reviews basically point to is this:
Fallout 3tards merely want a copy-pasted, poorly-written, logic-failing-fetch-quest-infested dungeon crawl as long as it looks interesting while nearly everybody who actually comes from a background of wanting anything beyond Fallout 2 to be well-written, challenging, full of diverse quests, C&C, storytelling, carefully handled canon and meaningful RPG character-building.
What a depressing fucking pattern.
It was expected that F:NV got worse review scores than Falllout 3. That's for several reasons, including:
* Fallout 3 had better graphics for it's time (the same graphics 2 years ago).
* Fallout 3 was the "innovative game". New Vegas is just an "expansion".
* Fallout 3 had more cool and impossible shit, like the giant robots and thousands of enclave troopers coming out of holes.
* Fallout 3 had less bugs.
Also, the last thing that game reviewers want are true RPGs with meaningfull character building.
* Fallout 3 had better graphics for it's time (the same graphics 2 years ago).
* Fallout 3 was the "innovative game". New Vegas is just an "expansion".
* Fallout 3 had more cool and impossible shit, like the giant robots and thousands of enclave troopers coming out of holes.
* Fallout 3 had less bugs.
Also, the last thing that game reviewers want are true RPGs with meaningfull character building.
José Cruz said:
I would argue the bugs (More like reviewers ignored them) but I don't really agree with this. How had Fallout 3 better graphics for its time? Not only was Oblivion the more beautiful gamebryo game (Which may have to do with the setting) but the graphics were horrid even back then.
I think I would rather argue that the "unique" setting itself was more impressive in 2008 which made people ignore graphical faults.
My personal opinion is, that NV's graphic is better than F3 ones, simply because of colors and the general style of the world. Fallout 3 just was too monotone most of the time. Many people might have forgotten about it, because they installed weather / color tone mods and such to change this point.
I wouldn't say that. To each its own I guess, but I didn't like "taking my first steps out of Vault 101" (felt like a replay from Fallout 1 yet worse with all this child stuff and a stupid b-day party I should have enjoyed!) and I didn't like "exploring the Capital Wasteland" (which doesn't really fit in the Fallout setting AFAIC).
I really love the western feeling to F:NV, though. In some topic out there on a neighboring board there was a guy saying the game's basically a western. Yeah, so what? It's much more in line with the original setting, and IMO more interesting to watch and stroll through. Just recall the original games -- it wouldn't be so far from the truth to say that they were basically westerns set in a sci-fi world. Except the obvious design choices (deserts, mountains, wastelands etc., we all know that), that moral ambiguity "neo-westerns" had (I mean, the 90s type, not the early ones with the white/black morality) was there. Junktown -- a "good" sheriff (keywords: law, general store, assassin) and a "bad" casino mogul (gambling etc.) -- you could either raid the bad guy with a pack of lawmen, help out the good one by spying on the bad one (sthat is, double-cross him) or kill both of them (and gain fame for doing so, somehow). You might have also go to jail if you're caught. There was a local gang you could join or could fight off, there were some boxing duels (in the pen) you could watch and place your bets on (AFAIR), and a bar where brawls happened for real and people got killed -- that's a plain western setting!
That is to say, I haven't seen anything like that in FO3. Sure, there was Megaton (again, clumsy utilization of ideas that were present in the previous games), but the real purpose the city have been put there for was just to keep the players on the right track (ah the linear plot), and to give them that illusive impression there are real choices and consequences in the game. And what's more, how many cities were there in the game? You start wandering through the wasteland, you go to Megadon, you're all oh and ah and then what? Then you won't really find nothing as, should we say, spectacular any more -- only barren wastes with copypasted stuff all over them save some landmarks.
And now compare it to Obsidian's New Vegas. . .
I would sum it up like this:
New Vegas is to Fallout 3 what Gothic is to TES. :>
Well, a little bit at least.
New Vegas is to Fallout 3 what Gothic is to TES. :>
Well, a little bit at least.
Metacritic average falling! Oh noes!
No. A thousand times no. This neither makes sense for TES as a franchise (as opposed to just Oblivion) or, well, New Vegas to Fallout 3.
Yeah, it's really annoying and inappropriate. But New Vegas has the same "throw shit at it and see what sticks" Fallout 2 and 3 had. I guess that's what the franchise is now.
Lexx said:
No. A thousand times no. This neither makes sense for TES as a franchise (as opposed to just Oblivion) or, well, New Vegas to Fallout 3.
Hartigan said:
Yeah, it's really annoying and inappropriate. But New Vegas has the same "throw shit at it and see what sticks" Fallout 2 and 3 had. I guess that's what the franchise is now.
Well, I could have written Gothic 1 to Oblivion. Or Gothic 2 to Oblivion. Maybe Gothic 3 to Oblivion.
Whatever it is, New Vegas feels different than Fallout 3 and I don't mean the look of it. It's the whole "how stuff works in the game." You don't roam aimless through the gameworld anymore, which the player has done in F3 most of the time, if he wasn't following the main quest.
Whatever it is, New Vegas feels different than Fallout 3 and I don't mean the look of it. It's the whole "how stuff works in the game." You don't roam aimless through the gameworld anymore, which the player has done in F3 most of the time, if he wasn't following the main quest.
But you could roam aimlessly in Gothic 1.
The difference between Gothic (which I love) and Oblivion (which I find so tedious I never finished it) is that Gothic gets open-world gameplay. Oblivion tries to take away all challenges, and throws a free open world at you where you will never run into a challenge or - for that matter - anything interesting.
Gothic has wild running away from wolves or monsters. Or spending an hour devising a strategy and finally killing that one orc in the cave so you can get the magic ring he's guarding. Gothic didn't hold your hand, and it didn't lock you off either.
Fallout 3 is similar to Oblivion, I'm with you on that, though it did have challenges you could face down by being clever Gothic style (crippling deathclaws at the knees and the like).
But New Vegas isn't really like Gothic, which is where your comparison falls apart. New Vegas wants you to play a linear game to open up with, and if you don't play along it throws monsters at you that you can't defeat due to high DT. Unless you feel like abusing their AI and shooping them from up a rock or something silly. Or unless you have Boone and his friggin' kamehameha-sniper rifle with you.
In that sense, New Vegas is more about "dead zones" similar to Fallout 2. Conceptually it's great, but it's stuck in the wrong engine, and I can't really say it works for me. It forces a kind of linear start into an engine built for open world games. It jars. And it certainly lacks a lot of Gothic's brilliance. DT is too simplified for that, it is too binary. You lack the gun? Well then you can't kill the monster. Sad but true.
Unless you have the patience to shoop for crits. FOREVER.
The difference between Gothic (which I love) and Oblivion (which I find so tedious I never finished it) is that Gothic gets open-world gameplay. Oblivion tries to take away all challenges, and throws a free open world at you where you will never run into a challenge or - for that matter - anything interesting.
Gothic has wild running away from wolves or monsters. Or spending an hour devising a strategy and finally killing that one orc in the cave so you can get the magic ring he's guarding. Gothic didn't hold your hand, and it didn't lock you off either.
Fallout 3 is similar to Oblivion, I'm with you on that, though it did have challenges you could face down by being clever Gothic style (crippling deathclaws at the knees and the like).
But New Vegas isn't really like Gothic, which is where your comparison falls apart. New Vegas wants you to play a linear game to open up with, and if you don't play along it throws monsters at you that you can't defeat due to high DT. Unless you feel like abusing their AI and shooping them from up a rock or something silly. Or unless you have Boone and his friggin' kamehameha-sniper rifle with you.
In that sense, New Vegas is more about "dead zones" similar to Fallout 2. Conceptually it's great, but it's stuck in the wrong engine, and I can't really say it works for me. It forces a kind of linear start into an engine built for open world games. It jars. And it certainly lacks a lot of Gothic's brilliance. DT is too simplified for that, it is too binary. You lack the gun? Well then you can't kill the monster. Sad but true.
Unless you have the patience to shoop for crits. FOREVER.