New Vegas, why isn't it 'great' in your opinion?

[Threepwood]

Hello there, this is my first post, so hello to the community

Iv'e often read through the posts here, without actually making an account, most specifically regarding Fallout 3. It's apparent to me, that most people here agree that New Vegas was an improvment of it's BethSoft counterpart, but what is it, that seperates it from achieving the epicness of the originals in your opinion?

I mean, lets put aside the shooting mechanics, the FPS elements, and they are just elements as they are completley avoidable, are just a way of facilitating gameplay, so lets put aside that, as it's a subective issue. Many like that gameplay style, many don't, there is no scale of it's quality, it's just the game design Obsidian inherited.

Just take a look at this: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_endings

This is the best example, of the extent of choice and consiquence which is so prevelant throughout Vegas, and which is also a keystone of Fallout. Vegas is practically Reno, the traits are back, companions are expanded, the content included is far larger than both FO1 and 2 combined, with excellent quality (not technically, but lets not go there) to match. I can not see one single element within New Vegas that stops it being universally accepted as superior to it's predecessors.

I'm not trolling, just looking for a bit of debate

 

[Brother None]

You're looking for debate but before the debate even begins you preclude gameplay? You preclude gameplay for debate the greatness of a video game?

I'm not sure you're actually looking for debate.

 

[Anarchosyn]

but what is it, that seperates it from achieving the epicness of the originals in your opinion?

I've played very little so take all this with a grain, but "one line dialog responses" can be taken as a metaphorical catch-all to my issues with the game. This is, after all, relatively minor in significance compared to the improvements, hence why I'm playing, but there seems a lack in depth compared to the originals regarding dialog options. I've yet to see many (any?) declarative or imperative statements -- most tend to be interrogative (which works for efficiency but takes away some of the colorful asides you could branch the conversations).


However, I don't really think you can abstract away the gameplay differences from the analysis (I mean, these are games first after all). The combat in the originals wasn't perfect but the AP system of tactical thinking (and multiple attack options per item) just don't seem as nuanced in these modern, FPS versions. A large part of the draw, I imagine, was for the tactical approach which reduced every encounter to dynamic, analytical puzzles rather than twitch affairs.

 

[Threepwood]

You're looking for debate but before the debate even begins you preclude gameplay? You preclude gameplay for debate the greatness of a video game?

I'm not sure you're actually looking for debate.

Precluding gameplay, and precluding shooting elements are disparate entirley.

One can complete the game without firing a bullet, to me, the majority of the gameplay is exploration, dialog, and utilising all of your skills, i.e you could mould your game around sneaking for example.

I was just saying, as there are a definite number of gamers who will write off New Vegas for it's shooting elements, what arguments are there besides that.

 

[Threepwood]

but what is it, that seperates it from achieving the epicness of the originals in your opinion?

I've played very little so take all this with a grain, but "one line dialog responses" can be taken as a metaphorical catch-all to my issues with the game. This is, after all, relatively minor in significance compared to the improvements, hence why I'm playing, but there seems a lack in depth compared to the originals regarding dialog options. I've yet to see many (any?) declarative or imperative statements -- most tend to be interrogative (which works for efficiency but takes away some of the colorful asides you could branch the conversations).


However, I don't really think you can abstract away the gameplay differences from the analysis (I mean, these are games first after all). The combat in the originals wasn't perfect but the AP system of tactical thinking (and multiple attack options per item) just don't seem as nuanced in these modern, FPS versions. A large part of the draw, I imagine, was for the tactical approach which reduced every encounter to dynamic, analytical puzzles rather than twitch affairs.

I would argue foremost, that being a master on Call of Duty will offer you no benefit on Fallout New Vegas, as, despite the introduction of ironsights bullets are still, partially, governed by skill levels.

Secondly, i'd say that real time combat is, for me atleast, and I say this as someone who played the original Fallout's on release, more engaging, and more tactical. The tactical elements of FPS games, i.e BIA are vast, but that's another argument, however within Fallout 3 and Vegas, i'd say there is a fair level of tactics at play at any time.

For example, I recently started a new, female character, and played through the 'Ghost Town Gunfight' quest. During the battle, I used sneak mode to score a critical hit, used cover when the ensuing fire fight broke out, opened up VATS, used leg shots to cripple the melle combatant charging me, and shot a pistol out of a Powder Gangers hand, before subsequentley pushing the attack on a fleeing Joe Cobb. There are tactics, albeit weak ones in play.

The dialog, yes, it's not as fleshed out as it could have been, and NPC's always have more intresting things to say to you, than you do to them, which is odd given the PC needed no VA.

 

[Brother None]

Please use the edit button when your own post is the last. Read our rules, if you will.

 

[Threepwood]

Please use the edit button when your own post is the last. Read our rules, if you will.

I am aware of general forum practice, sorry about that double post.

 

[Quaid]

Hello and welcome!

I, too, played the original Fallouts upon release and hold Fallout 1 to be my favorite game of all time. I find Fallout: New Vegas to be what Fallout 3 should have been (given the limitations of the engine). I am about 1/3 of the way through the story, I believe, and have not been to New Vegas though I have played an average of 1-2 hours per day since release. I am slowly exploring, doing quests, and building up my character.

I understand your point with attempting to avoid downing the game due to the different combat engine. If it wasn't for the VATS mode I probably wouldn't play the game very much. I know it is a 'poor man's replacement of turn-based' but it is all I've got. I love PnP RPGs and the game design for the original fallout was to emulate it to the best of their ability. Fallout 3 and New Vegas don't have the same philosophy and it hurts those games considering the series they are continuing.

The writing and the story are engaging for today's standards but that is a bit sad to me considering what has gone before and what can be achieved. I still remember the paragraph book from Wasteland. That was a real treat. Now we have the power to store all of that information in the computer and you don't really see games like that anymore. Such a shame.

 

[Threepwood]

Hello and welcome!

I, too, played the original Fallouts upon release and hold Fallout 1 to be my favorite game of all time. I find Fallout: New Vegas to be what Fallout 3 should have been (given the limitations of the engine). I am about 1/3 of the way through the story, I believe, and have not been to New Vegas though I have played an average of 1-2 hours per day since release. I am slowly exploring, doing quests, and building up my character.

I understand your point with attempting to avoid downing the game due to the different combat engine. If it wasn't for the VATS mode I probably wouldn't play the game very much. I know it is a 'poor man's replacement of turn-based' but it is all I've got. I love PnP RPGs and the game design for the original fallout was to emulate it to the best of their ability. Fallout 3 and New Vegas don't have the same philosophy and it hurts those games considering the series they are continuing.

The writing and the story are engaging for today's standards but that is a bit sad to me considering what has gone before and what can be achieved. I still remember the paragraph book from Wasteland. That was a real treat. Now we have the power to store all of that information in the computer and you don't really see games like that anymore. Such a shame.

Hello, I too enjoyed the turn based combat 'back in the day' as it were. However, when I return to those games, I love everything about them EXCEPT for the turnbased combat. Maybe iv'e just been dumbed down with modern shooters or something, but I think we often look back with rose tinted glasses, as to how good the combat actually was. I mean, if they could have rendered 60fps 3d real time gameplay, they probably would have.

 

[Anarchosyn]

Hello, I too enjoyed the turn based combat 'back in the day' as it were. However, when I return to those games, I love everything about them EXCEPT for the turnbased combat. Maybe iv'e just been dumbed down with modern shooters or something, but I think we often look back with rose tinted glasses, as to how good the combat actually was. I mean, if they could have rendered 60fps 3d real time gameplay, they probably would have.

I don't think so. That's like saying chess would naturally be outmoded by baseball. They touch different elements of the mind -- one's visceral and reflex based whilst the other is more consciously analytical and based on optimal choice. There is also the "character skill vs. player skill" argument which many stalwart old school RPG players (like myself) will undoubtedly bring up (but we can save that for later).

I personally prefer the Baldur's Gate / Dragons Age hybrid system the most as it gives the best of both world. Fallout's combat was good but not great (the tactical depth could have been expanded, and was in Tactics but at the expense of story and non-combat depth). Fallout 1 and 2 also ran into the problem of the time investment demanded for clearing out low level "mobs" after your party became significantly powerful (even running away would take forever). Baldur's Gate alleviated this by allowing one to switch into "real time" and quickly mop the floor with the "mobs" in seconds flat, but the trade off was even less tactical depth available (though this may have been more due to limitations of the D20 system in this regard).

Frankly, there really isn't an easy way to take the AP methodology of the early Fallout systems and translate it into a real time combat engine.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

@OP: This here could be a good start to get a general idea: http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=56411

Baldur's Gate alleviated this by allowing one to switch into "real time" and quickly mop the floor with the "mobs" in seconds flat

I think you're confusing BG with some other game. BG didn't have a TB mode, it ran on the atrocious RTwP that is a crime against humanity. The tedious process of having to constantly pause the game to line up appropriate actions, then release and hope that the PCs won't fail at pathfinding (which they usually do and walk straight into friendly-fire range), was pretty loathsome design. But at least it did keep most original DnD rules, it all just didn't work well in RT.

Dragon Age, on the other hand, deliberately scrapped all that depth and presented a more or less "SP MMO" style combat with the difference of controlling multiple characters at once. Still, the "difficult" battle were boring, where you basically hit some one dude with lots of HP until it dies, while the big battles with lots of weak enemies were unnecessary frustrating because of poor camera implementation.

The best combat system IMNSHO was in TOEE, where it kept all the depth a turn-based system could need, but also streamlined it a bit so that you would not needlessly wait for 15 weak goons to take a turn. It's still a bit slow because it's TB, but it offers vast improvements over any TB system I've seen thus far.

Frankly, there really isn't an easy way to take the AP methodology of the early Fallout systems and translate it into a real time combat engine.

You could assign AP to all creatures, and have all actions (use item, attack etc.) take up AP, say, if there was an "enemy nearby". I remember hearing people talk a lot about it at FO3 release, maybe there's even a mod for it. It'd be difficult to account for walking, but everything else'd be reasonable. Then again, that'd probably result in everyone running circles around each other waiting for AP to replenish, similar to the silly dances the characters in NWN do.

 

[Starwars]

I would not hesitate to call New Vegas great myself actually. But it depends on what context I look at it from as well. I think it's a much better Fallout game than F3 but there's still a lot of stuff that I think just doesn't fit with the universe. And the gameplay is rather far removed from the first two.

But just looking at on its own, though it is uneven, it's a really great FP RPG. I'm enjoying it a lot.

Fallout 1 is still the undisputed king for me but I think I might prefer New Vegas to Fallout 2. Still way too early to tell though.

 

[AWildmann]

To be honest, I only knew Fallout 1 and 2 because of FO3.

Hell, I was 4 years old when the first Fallout was launched.

But I'm a old gaming enthusiast, before I got to play FO3 I did played FO1 and 2 (even though I haven't finished FO1, but FO2 several times), and I loved it, even though in the beginning it felt weird.

Then I managed to play FO3 and damn, was it disappointing. Most of the game felt dragging, I haven't even hit lvl 30 on my single character because of how the game was boring. And annoying.

But I have to say that FNV has got WAY better than FO3, the beginning was way less stretching, and I loved the voice acting so far (I just got to new vegas strip), no annoying voices, except maybe for Chris at REPCONN.

Other than that, I do agree that the shooting part of the game still sucks, unless the enemies are still unaware of my presence and I aim with Ironsights, I really hate how bad the aiming is for me to do outside of vats.

But still, I really liked the game and I am looking forward to having several characters to try out the different builds.

 

[Empty09]

Imagine you hear about Fallout 1 because of Fallout 3.
You get Fallout 1, you get patches and high resolution patch. Now picture how happy I could be back then. In a weekend.
One thing I have to thank Fallout 3 for is for introducing me to the classic ones, but seriously, FO3 is a joke.
I don't even consider it canon, I don't even consider it at all, I try to block any kind of thought directed to FO3. Never happened.

The reason I sound weird because I said I found about the series trough fallout 3 it's because once you learn about the originals and compare what FO3 was you will see that Bethesda copy pasted some elements from the classics, and while some of them shouldn't even be there anymore since it's implausible for them to reach the east coast or they have already been eliminated in the timeline of FO1 & 2 they don't even bother to logically connect them somehow, not to mention the wrong recycling (BOS the big humanitarians etc).

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Hmm, I'm surprised there's people out there that have not heard of Fallout before FO3. I mean, it's one of those legendary games every RPG or cRPG game fan is guaranteed to know (or so I thought). Granted, I didn't "grow up" on FO either, but games like TOEE and NWN that were popular back when I got my first computer pointed straight back to their roots in game like FO and BG.

 

[Nalano]

Not terribly dissimilar to folks who didn't play GTA, GTA:UK or GTA2, and as such were introduced to the GTA series through GTA3... on the xbox.

 

[AWildmann]

Well, I can say that not just because I was too young to know it, but also because I took veeery long to learn about computer games. All I had up until 14 I only had a Super Nintendo and a Nintendo 64.

I recall that I had a computer so slow that Counter Strike running at 20 fps was already a bliss for me, say, with about 16 years.

But just like I enjoy finding out about old musics, like Creedence, Steppenwolf, Alice Copper, musics that were beyond my age, I also enjoy finding out about games.

Sadly too I didn't knew any old gamers back then, if I had I surely would have known about Fallout. Even though I wouldn't know my reaction back then, the game is quite adult and maybe even with 14 I would find a lot of stuff that I would understand or appropriate (not that I care of course).


But seriously, I can't believe how someone would say that FO3 is better than FNV. I watched that review from IGN and I almost shut the video when the narrator said : "Is Fallout New Vegas a good game? Yes! Is it better than Fallout 3? No".

Seriously. Seriously.

 

[Anarchosyn]

@OP: This here could be a good start to get a general idea: http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=56411

Baldur's Gate alleviated this by allowing one to switch into "real time" and quickly mop the floor with the "mobs" in seconds flat

I think you're confusing BG with some other game. BG didn't have a TB mode, it ran on the atrocious RTwP that is a crime against humanity.

It has been forever since I've thought deeply on the behind the scenes processes of the infinity engine, but I do believe the calculations were turn based in nature (though, from a players standpoint, it's true that you couldn't take this "behind the scenes" abstraction and lock yourself into discrete turn based combat scenarios). I found how it operated, out of the box, atrocious but, if you fiddled with the options and set "pause on enemy sighted" and "pause when target is dead" (or however they phrased it), you could approximate turn based with a judicious use of periodic pausing.

Ultimately, however, I was using "turn based" colloquially (and not pedantically). My point was that it allowed the battle to progress at a speed you, and not the game, saw fit.

Dragon Age, on the other hand, deliberately scrapped all that depth and presented a more or less "SP MMO" style combat with the difference of controlling multiple characters at once. Still, the "difficult" battle were boring, where you basically hit some one dude with lots of HP until it dies, while the big battles with lots of weak enemies were unnecessary frustrating because of poor camera implementation.

Well, I was talking more about the ability to control the speed of the combat at your leisure. I also bristle at equating the use of "cool down time" with MMO combat design -- DA had a host more modifiers and conditionals running than that.

As to the "difficult" battles being boring, can you point me towards a cRPG that didn't devolve into something you could describe as "hitting some dude with lost of HP until it died"? Ok, so you chose to not use poisons, set traps, use spell combinations or use stunning, armor stat crippling or movement slowing abilities effectively during combat. Should the game's worth be held back by the player's lack of imagination?

As to the weak enemies being frustrating due to poor camera, I'm presuming you played on the consoles 'cause the PC's camera was fine. I actually played both versions and found even the console's camera to be fine, though definitely the more frustrating of the two. Anyhow, I never had these problems so perhaps your tolerance levels are lower, I'm unsure. Again, though, my point was less to praise the intricacies of the system and more to laud the time saving approach a pausable RT system offered.

You could assign AP to all creatures, and have all actions (use item, attack etc.) take up AP, say, if there was an "enemy nearby". I remember hearing people talk a lot about it at FO3 release, maybe there's even a mod for it. It'd be difficult to account for walking, but everything else'd be reasonable. Then again, that'd probably result in everyone running circles around each other waiting for AP to replenish, similar to the silly dances the characters in NWN do.

You hit the nail on the head. Without dedicated "hexes" (I'll use quotations when expressly not speaking pedantically) you'd be hard pressed to do more than subdivide distance and would probably be a nightmare to get working in that abysmal engine of theirs.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

As to the "difficult" battles being boring, can you point me towards a cRPG that didn't devolve into something you could describe as "hitting some dude with lost of HP until it died"?

Well, my beef with DA:O is not just that, but that one no-brainer strategy works for all "tough guy" battles, meaning there's too little variety. Sure, one could try other ways, but the game doesn't encourage it (since the alternatives are less effective and thus less fun). It gets repetitive after a while. For example, the Revenant battles (from vials) were a bore. It really falls short compared to its official "spiritual predecessor" when it comes to variety of challenges, not to mention as compared to some more tactical games like TOEE.

I also bristle at equating the use of "cool down time" with MMO combat design -- DA had a host more modifiers and conditionals running than that.

Actually, I was thinking more the way skill & feat progression worked. Looked pretty uninspired, could have been a lot better.

As to the weak enemies being frustrating due to poor camera, I'm presuming you played on the consoles 'cause the PC's camera was fine.

I played PC. On many indoor maps or city RE maps I could never manage to get the camera give me a full view of the battlefield, because it'd refuse to zoom out if it hit a wall.

It has been forever since I've thought deeply on the behind the scenes processes of the infinity engine, but I do believe the calculations were turn based in nature

Kind of but also no, since it calculated too many things at the same time. With so much going on at once so fast, it often resulted in confusion about what character is doing what, especially if you have several spell-casters with different cast time, making it easy to lose important spells by re-assigning an action before the casting was fully over, for example. For me it was just too much on crack and too fast to account for everything happening. Like I said, I much prefer TB systems that collapse adjacent enemy turns, but still keep the basic TB structure.

 

[Korin]

A huge thorn in my side is how New Vegas handles quests. There must be at least three times as many as in Fallout 3, but for what they actually have you doing they could have slimmed that down considerably. There are far too many quest paths that have you running tedious fedex errands or needlessly direct you back and forth across the Mojave.

There also seems to a great deal of dialogue heavy quests and events that have you spend far too much time talking to someone about something. It seems extremely easy to inadvertently get a bunch of these types of quests chained together, so you end up not doing anything but talking to NPCs for an hour.