Am I the only one looking forward to New Vegas?

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

uuuuuummm, WHY should the BoS not have been in 3???

Well, it just seemed so shoe-horned in. For one, in the 2nd game BoS was kinda dying out (notice, not much is being said about them for New Vegas), so it doesn't seem to make much sense for them to send a force across the country just to see if there is SOME tech when their numbers were dwindling anyhow.

I'd be willing to bet the capital of the country would have enough good tech to rejuvenate efforts. If the Brotherhood was dying out then I'd consider that a last-ditch effort to continue the dream, as it were. Perhaps that "severing of contact" wasn't of the original BoS's volition.

 

[Calbeck]

I liked FO3, and Imma gonna get this the second it hits the shelves.

 

[Harkwell]

I still love the originals..so i will put this on the table...

New Vegas isnt really an "improvement" to Fallout 3, and going from a wasteland to a wasteland, with populated areas isnt really....Fallout in term (the word Fallout, not the game)..Yeah in the second Fallout there was a vegas like place, but that was one place, according to Game Informer...a huge part of the game is Vegas like places...now that is a true turn-off...and another problem is that Fallout 3+ New Vegas plays the "survival" card, yet its laughable, because you get so much ammo and health kits, taht your a living terminator...

Right, but what happens when you become so weighted down by health packs and ammo, you can't make it to the pond across the map in time to keep from dying? I think the Survival Card in New Vegas isn't as laughable as you presume.

IF your playing on hardcore, otherwise, yes your a walking terminator. Fallout 3 isn't a good survival game because theres a point in the game when enemies drop bullets and guns to repairs yours like crazy, and since there was no limit other than weight, you could easily spam away at your enemies. One of my characters can carries 4 big guns, 2 laser rifles, and 3 combat shotties without trouble. When I started, I was easily able to keep my 10mm pistol in great condition with more than enough ammo, especially with VATS.

Also, there is an Outdoorsman/Survival skill. Im not quite sure wht it does but its confirmed.

 

[Harkwell]

3rd Reason: Fallout 3 wasn't true to the original Fallouts(Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout: Tactics), so how can New Vegas be true to it aswell? Well, personally, I feel that the main reason most people think Fallout 3 was true to the originals is because it was set in D.C., which should obviously feel different than California. Another reason is that is because it is in First Person, not overhead and that is real-time not turn-based. Well, I can understand enjoying turn-based gaming, but just because a game switch styles does not mean it becomes unfaithful. Just means its different from the old, which can sometimes be a good thing. As for why New Vegas can be faithful is simple, it is in Nevada, which means that it will have that West Coast feel. It'll have things that will have only been on the west coast, and reflect the old games more easily because they won't have to try to shoe-horn certain iconic factions into the game, because it would just make since for them to be there to begin with. (Also, BoS really shouldn't have been in Fallout 3, but thats a moot point.)

It's not just in the perspective and the combat system that it's unfaithful. Fallout 3 doesn't use the same sort of humour as Fallout 1 and 2... Heck, it hardly has any humour at all. It has much less in the way of freedom in the way you play the game, i.e. there isn't much to do if you aren't killing people. The SPECIAL system hardly had any significance on the game, it was almost all skill determined. They put children in it but you can't kill them, and not to mention Little Lamplight, where you could get stuck if you did it wrong. They butchered melee combat, and general complexity of combat. No knocking people unconscious, no blinding people, no disabling their gun arm so they couldn't use their weapon. You could blow the weapon out of their hands, but they could just pick it up again. No disabling people's legs completely, not groin shots, which was really useful in the first two games.

I think the problem is that they called it Fallout 3, it indicated that it was a follow-up to 1 and 2, and it made people expect something remotely similar. But that wasn't what they made. They could have called it something else, like Fallout New Vegas, and it wouldn't have been as much of a disappointment.

agreed, all very true.

 

[CheckD3]

I'm excited for New Vegas, I love FO3 and NV looks like a new adventure in the same way as the original.

I think the dislikers are mostly the original FO fans, who dislike the name used for a different adventure.

 

[Jaranja]

Fallout 3 was a top-ten all-time game. New Vegas looks to be more of the same. Where's the problem?

The price tag. It's not a new game, it's another city.

Can we not have Fallout 4?

 

[Krantos]

I'm not looking forward to it, by my friend really is.

Personally, I found that Fallout got monotonous after a while, and New Vegas "Looks like more of the same." For fans of FO3, that's certainly a good thing, as you pointed out, but it's not enough to turn fence-riders like myself.

The biggest problem I have with it is Obsidian. FO3 was glitchy enough, so I'm almost afraid of what NV is going to when it comes out.


-Side note, because I know that the Obsidian fan-boys are going to jump on me again: I have a lot of respect for Obsidian's Creativity; they have a great track-record in terms of innovation (something sorely lacking as of late). What I don't like is that they've yet to release a finished game. I know the complaint is always that they weren't given enough time, but Alpha Protocol was shamelessly delayed repeatedly and it was still unbalanced and buggy as hell.

 

[themilo504]

you know why it looks cool to me?
because it looks like a game that dousent follows normal mmporg rules.
it sounds like a dream to combine the action and fun that comes from pc fps and the social stuff and pvp from a mmporg.i realy hope that the people are as nich as in lord of the ring online.please please im happy that lotro it free but i hope it dousent get overrun with douchbags.

 

[Borntolose]

I loved Fallout 3, and New Vegas is at the top of my want list...
So no.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

Fallout 3 was great and a lot of us who didn't have an adequate PC in the late 90s and missed out on classic Fallout have now finally gotten to see what all the talk was about. Even if it's inferior to the originals, it's still a great game. One of my favorites in recent memory in fact. And with a little luck, New Vegas will follow suit and hopefully be at least as fun as F3 or better.

 

[Spazztic]

I'm looking forward to it, but I wouldn't go so far as to preorder it before I know as much about it as possible.

I really liked Fallout 3's gameplay (repetitiveness be damned...I enjoy Dynasty Warriors) but disliked the "find dad because you have to" story. I've played enough games and seen enough movies about finding dad. As long as Vegas doesn't have daddy issues, or at least doesn't have them as part of the main campaign arc, I will have no problem picking it up.

 

[Buzz3092]

I'm looking forward to it but not nearly as much as I was with Fallout 3. I have no doubt that it'll be a fun game and I think it might be better than Fallout 3. I was just hyped up a lot more about Fallout 3 because it was so new. I doubt I'll go get New Vegas on the first day after pre-ordering it months in advance like I did with the third Fallout but I still plan on getting it this year and spending another 300 hours of my life in a wasteland.

 

[Keava]

I was looking forward to it when it was first announced, then over course of weeks my excitement fell down below expected levels. I never enjoyed Fallout3 because it seemed..empty, and not only due to big empty wasteland around, but because there was something big missing there, something that would make me want to play it other than just to level up.

I'll probably get it just to fill my collection of Fallout titled games, but its low priority one.

 

[Snowalker]

snip

That was just after the nuclear war. The games take place a long, long time after that. I'm fairly sure that since it's fairly safe to be outside, rain wouldn't be too horrible. At most it would be slightly radiated, like the water from the sea or lakes, but much less so, since there's less of it. Also, there were farms in Fallout 1 and 2, so why wouldn't there be in 3?

Good point, and honestly, the only thing I can come up with, you notice how few settlements are actually outisde of D.C.? Megaton, Big Town, Republic of Dave. You might consider Arefu aswell.

However, this is only four places, only Megaton and Republic of Dave would have the slightest know how of doing the farming thing, and megaton has no need because of how its set-up, and well, Republic of Dave... just doesn't make sense.

So, because theres so few places... ah, screw it, you're right, theres no logical reason for no farms other than the fact theres an increased raider presence in D.C., and those guys seem the type to destroy crops.

 

[DSK-]

I need more info on it. While it does look like FO3 I expect (or more adequately know) the premise to be different to its predecessor.

I haven't finished the FO3 yet so I'm not interested in getting New Vegas at present.

 

[Chicaine]

I WAS really hyped for it when i was busy playing Fo3 but since playing other games i cant stand the amount of glitches etc, i know NV will probably suffer from the same shit so i'll pick it up, and probably regret it

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Personally I'm waiting to see if Obsidian pulls another RFED (Rocks Fall Everyone Dies) cop-out ending with this one.

 

[Davvda]

At first I felt extremely excited because of the simple reason that I LOVED Fallout 3 but when they revealed they were going to use the exact same engine got me kind of disappointed. Just to inform you, I have not played any other Fallout than Fo3 which makes me unable to state any points for or against Obsidian but from other players I've heard they're a company to trust.

To put it simple. I loved Fallout 3 but got bored of playing through every mission and DLC 5 times and I want to explore some new land... I'll buy it.

 

[SultanP]

snip

-also snip-

-yet another snip-

So, because theres so few places... ah, screw it, you're right, theres no logical reason for no farms other than the fact theres an increased raider presence in D.C., and those guys seem the type to destroy crops.

Good point. Except that however destructive and evil they might be, there is a good chance that they would realize that destroying the crops means they can't steal food from anyone.

 

[Mr. Grey]

I know the complaint is always that they weren't given enough time, but Alpha Protocol was shamelessly delayed repeatedly and it was still unbalanced and buggy as hell.

I think Obsidian wanted to cancel it, but Sega wouldn't let them. So what became an exciting game, eventually became mowing the lawn with a broken down lawn mower. Responsibilities be damned! They can't mow the lawn with a broken lawn mower. Sega hands them a hedge clippers, for some reason, and tells them to continue anyways, it's hard to cut the lawn even with hedge clippers. Really hard... and it takes a long time.

Or that's the story I've heard. Don't know how much of it is true, but considering how Alpha Protocol ended up, it sounds like something Obsidian would want to cancel.

Good point. Except that however destructive and evil they might be, there is a good chance that they would realize that destroying the crops means they can't steal food from anyone.

I thought they ate people... or am I mistaken with all the corpses I've been finding in their layers? Well, even if they don't eat them... that's still pretty wasteful.