Anarchosyn
Still Mildly Glowing

I remember the first day I heard about Fallout: I was in my teens and was waiting in line to purchase something PC related at a local Electronic Boutique or Babbages in Ohio. I'd long been a lover of RPGs and science fiction but had never discovered a game which embodied both. The counter jockey started to chat me up and motioned my attention over to Fallout 2. I didn't immediately purchase it -- I knew little or reactivity and didn't yet care about dialog depth. However, weeks later, marveling at the manual in hand, my eyes fell upon a passage which has haunted my memory ever since:
"...And why not have fun with your experience: Try playing a jinxed moron or a cripple with a penchant for science sometime!"
(paraphrased, of course)
Well, since those lonesome days I've used this general philosophy as a litmus for any game's depth. Pretty much every time I approach a title I attempt to push its envelope by generating the most non-combat oriented social savant I can get away with (to hell with difficulty, I'm a bright lad).
Of course, Bethesda titles fail miserably at this test and I had all but given up on them when New Vegas was announced.
Now, with all that said...
Question: How does New Vegas rate?
Can you get away with being a colorful, combat inept social savant and make headway in this title?
Can I really play out different builds or has the general taint of Bethesda eclipsed any sense of range Obsidian could have brought?
Should I rush out to Steam tomorrow or just boot up my beta tester copy of Arcanum and relieve my youth with a better title?
In essence, is it merely good for a 3d Fallout title or is it just good?
p.s. Just to put a little perspective on the subject of this thread, the ability to role play in a digital universe really hinges on being given a wide range of dialog options more often than not. Bethesda were abysmal at this but I hope Obsidian can offer better. Have they succeeded? Can I run the gamut of a wide eyed innocent to a battle hardened wastelander?
"...And why not have fun with your experience: Try playing a jinxed moron or a cripple with a penchant for science sometime!"
(paraphrased, of course)
Well, since those lonesome days I've used this general philosophy as a litmus for any game's depth. Pretty much every time I approach a title I attempt to push its envelope by generating the most non-combat oriented social savant I can get away with (to hell with difficulty, I'm a bright lad).
Of course, Bethesda titles fail miserably at this test and I had all but given up on them when New Vegas was announced.
Now, with all that said...
Question: How does New Vegas rate?
Can you get away with being a colorful, combat inept social savant and make headway in this title?
Can I really play out different builds or has the general taint of Bethesda eclipsed any sense of range Obsidian could have brought?
Should I rush out to Steam tomorrow or just boot up my beta tester copy of Arcanum and relieve my youth with a better title?
In essence, is it merely good for a 3d Fallout title or is it just good?
p.s. Just to put a little perspective on the subject of this thread, the ability to role play in a digital universe really hinges on being given a wide range of dialog options more often than not. Bethesda were abysmal at this but I hope Obsidian can offer better. Have they succeeded? Can I run the gamut of a wide eyed innocent to a battle hardened wastelander?