Fallout 3 and New Vegas; An Examination

Recommended Videos

Pointer

New member
Mar 19, 2010
78
0
0
Both games are great, and I more or less agree with you. The main problem I have with both games is that they are half assed.

Let me explain. Fallout 3 was immersive and awesome and a whole bucket of pies. The NPCs, if they were pies, were bland flaky and filled with crap. I could mention the conversation system that breaks all sense of gameplay. But I won't. Instead I'm going to look at the a)shitty animations, b)repetitive voices, and c) lack of characterization.

First and foremost, whoever did the mocap was either a robot or extremely rigid. These are the most unnatural, stiff as a board, no motion variation characters who happen to live in the uncanny valley. The way they walk, make gestures and engage in combat is completely unrealistic to me, though this might be because I frequently go play mil-sim sports like airsoft. You don't need to break out the Uncharted trick where they literally had hundreds of different animations for taking cover but come on! Have at least four or five of them! An old man walks in a similar way to a child and vice versa. Nobody limps except when crippled, or has any other impairment. You can practically smell the wrapper coming off of these samey people. Thank heavens for the writers who made the characterized NPCs. That was a godsend, and they saved a lot of the game for me.

Not only that, but considering the small amount of NPCs in general as compared to New Vegas you'd think that everyone would at least have conversation options and not be spreading the same old bs one or two liners every time they opened their mouths. Not to mention they could have had more than the same one or two voice actors.

New Vegas has the same problems, though I'm more willing to forgo the samey characters (the grunts of each army don't need to express their feelings to the character like the ghost soldiers did to the little boy in the Sixth Sense) because its supposed to be more massive and civilizationy. Except they completely dropped the ball in actually making the civilization look inhabitable. Walking into Gammorah for the first time I was confused as to where all the gamblers were. The table were more crowded at the local bar in Freeside than in that empty city of sin. Similarly I was wondering where all the NCR refugees were in Freeside. There were practically none there, and it didn't seem like a huge deal to help out what seemed like a small problem. And this occurs everywhere. Sure there seems to be civilization being built but hell if I can see the people building it. And the NPCs come from the same pie factory as the first game. And are filled with stale dog turds.

All in all I do love this remake of the Fallout series. I just wish Bethesda would nut up or shut up. It makes money now use it to make it better. One of the things I'm actually looking forward to now via the new Skyrim game is the new engine which will hopefully help with the feel of the game in this regard, especially when it comes to NPC pie.
 

Moriarty

New member
Apr 29, 2009
325
0
0
Blatherscythe said:

oh god there has to be an easier way to communicate than ripping our posts apart like that.


1. Your dad killed himself to prevent his machine which could purify the irradiated water as it's sole reason to exist, from falling into the hands of genocidal maniacs. He floods the room with radiation that supposedly shouldn't be there despite us having no idea how the damn thing works.

yeah well it's a WATER PURIFIER, what the hell is the enclave going to do with it? The game goes even out of it's way to show us that autumn isn't even going to poison the water, they just want to turn the damn thing on.




2. Can't commented on the gibberish and he doesn't seem to mind Lamplight all that much, a device that could make a machine that purifies water, the basic ingrediant in all life, what better use for a wonder MacGuffin than that?

the wonder Macguffin could bring life to the wasteland just by the pressing a button. Instead we're using it to purify water, a function so common that every butler robot can do already twice a day with water condensers.



Colonel Autum shows up, but turns out if you read the Fallout Wiki he injected himself with a powerful Rad-X to survive apparently, but the radiation still knocked him out. He knocks you out with some sort of flashbang weapon that is never identifiyed, in an area with pipes that could have been used for climbing.

so even if autumn somehow survived lying unconcious in an area so highly irridiated that it kills every other person in it instantly, how is the enclave supposed to get into the vault to trap you? The front entrance is blocked and the back entrance is guarded by little children which are still alive after that. Are we supposed to believe Autumn rescued another two children from slavers so he could earn their trust so they let him through?


3. He tortures you to try and get an acess code to activate the purifier that the Enclave have now fixed but cannot activate. The reason you shouldn't give him the code is because he caused the death of your father and from what you've heard his plans for the purifier cannot be good. The president set you free to start the purifier with the virus which kills all slightly mutated life except for the Enclave and pure humans. Although he makes it seem that you shall be spared.
but you are told at the same time that Autumn opposes the plan of the president. He goes so far to directly override the presidents commands to ensure the virus isn't going to be used. Also the "you shall be spared" part isn't really true, the president thinks you are from a vault, but at that point in the story you know you are born outside and will die if you drink the infected water.


4. You battle for control of the purifier to prevent the Enclave from controlling the purifier and thus the wasteland and possibly add in Eden's Virus. After beating Autumn you realize that in the wake of the battle the purifier was damaged and someone has to start the purifier, but it will cost them their life. The only reason you aren't killed is because enough fans complained about the ending and Bethesda tried to fix it.

except that there's no reason to hurry. You already know they're not going to poison the water, they just want control of it after they repaired it. But of course we can't let them activate the device that kills the one trying to turn it on, we have to rush in there with untested military prototypes just so that we can be "first"? And the game isn't even giving you a choice. You have to kill autumn so that you can kill yourself by turning it on instead of letting him deal with it.
 

Megahedron

New member
Aug 27, 2010
90
0
0
lunncal said:
I haven't played the older Fallouts either (not counting about 30 seconds of shooting rats in Fallout 1), but I greatly prefer New Vegas to Fallout 3. Fallout 3 nailed the dreary, post-apocalyptic atmosphere, but that wasn't the kind of atmosphere I wanted. It succeeds in making an incredibly dreary and dull world to explore (which is exactly what it was going for), but I personally don't want to explore a dreary and dull world. I just didn't find myself enjoying my time with Fallout 3, and I was never really very interested in what I was doing.

New Vegas on the other hand I found very entertaining. I always had an interest in what I was doing, and I actually cared about what would happen both to my character and to the factions and people around me. In Fallout 3 I explored and did quests simply because I had nothing else to do, whereas in New Vegas I did quests because I wanted to see what would happen, or because I wanted to help whoever had given me the quest, or just for plain old personal gain.

Of course if you factor bugs and stability into this comparison at all, Fallout 3 wins hands down.
Holy crap, it's exactly what I wanted to say! I don't think I'd have explored most of the Capitol Wasteland had I not been forbidden from quitting before "Oh, you haven't done Oasis yet? Go there!" or "What do you mean you just found and left the Republic of Dave? Haven't you been to Tenpenny yet?" But in New Vegas, I beat the game and wanted to go back and discover every location.

Anyways, I just want to bask in the realization that I'm not alone.
 

Inkidu

New member
Mar 25, 2011
966
0
0
Honestly, I don't think New Vegas's story is actually better than Fallout 3s. I think New Vegas has better variety, but that doesn't mean better story. Most people are just mad because you had only three endings to Fallout 3, and New Vegas had tons of smaller endings.

Let's look at the plots of the stories.

Fallout 3: Find dad, dad found, lose dad, find GECK, get captured, save the day by starting up purifier bring fresh clean water to a whole area. Now, I don't know about you but I can get behind that. It's post-apocalyptia people. Small victories. He who controls water controls life, cliche!

New Vegas: Get shot in head, track down Benny, most likely kill Benny (Benny gets crucified), decide which of four possible story arcs to complete, complete the arc, battle at Hoover Dam. Guess what. WATER!

Actually all Fallout narratives are about water. You notice that? It all ends with water. Find the water chip, find the GECK which as water, find the GECK because this one is conveniently unstable and it's easier to rework it to run a water pump, control Hoover Damn to control water (and power).

War, war never changes. The Narratives of the Fallout games don't really strike me as the draw, the exploration does.

Now is New Vegas more ambiguous? Yes. Is it more varied? Yes. However, it's two different schools of thought. I think they're both pretty even from a narrative standpoint. So yeah, for me, it's where I go and see along the way, and New Vegas just was too civilized for my liking.
 

Trull

New member
Nov 12, 2010
190
0
0
I love both FO3 and FONV to death. Really, I'd kill for FO4, but you want the truth of why I like one more than the other? REALLY?! YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW?!

I LIKE FO:NV BETTER
FOR ONE REASON
It's on steam.

Other than that they're not comparable. Its like comparing L4D with RE - they both have the same concept (zombies/post apocalyptic world) but they're in a completely different world (for L4D and RE it's LITERALLY another world, in FO it's the fact that NV and the capital wasteland are so different to each other)
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
I think I liked New Vegas more, though I certainly have some stubborn qualms with a few things in the game. New Vegas simply had more life to the world; it had a lot of the quirk the old Fallout games had. However, I certainly liked the serious (or at least, more serious) take Fallout 3 portrayed. It worked, even if it was different.
 

Ghengis John

New member
Dec 16, 2007
2,209
0
0
Inkidu said:
It would be a lie to say that some people don't let their nostalgia shade their views of Fallout 3 or even New Vegas. My take is that I have no such attachment and that's all.
Ah well, one trip to no mutants allowed certainly proves that's true. I understand then.
 

AlternatePFG

New member
Jan 22, 2010
2,858
0
0
Inkidu said:
Fallout 3: Find dad, dad found, lose dad, find GECK, get captured, save the day by starting up purifier bring fresh clean water to a whole area. Now, I don't know about you but I can get behind that. It's post-apocalyptia people. Small victories. He who controls water controls life, cliche!

New Vegas: Get shot in head, track down Benny, most likely kill Benny (Benny gets crucified), decide which of four possible story arcs to complete, complete the arc, battle at Hoover Dam. Guess what. WATER!
If you boil down any story to their most basic elements they will sound similar. The problem with Fallout 3's story was it's awful writing and large gaping plot holes.
 

Tuesday Night Fever

New member
Jun 7, 2011
1,829
0
0
I liked both games... but I actually kind of disagree with a few of the original poster's points. Like the post-apocalyptic setting. Yes, I'll agree that Fallout 3's Washington DC did indeed look more post-apocalyptic... but look at how many years have gone by since the bombs fell. I spent the entire game not really feeling very immersed because I couldn't fathom that after *all* that time people weren't really putting in even a half-hearted attempt to rebuild. New Vegas and its slow attempts at rebuilding society, in my humble opinion, were significantly more realistic, believable, and immersing.

I also somewhat disagree on the quality of Fallout 3's plot and the way Fallout: New Vegas "twisted your arm." For one thing, I never felt like my arm was being twisted in New Vegas. There's no time limit or anything. I put 80 hours into my first playthrough exploring the wastes and doing side quests before confronting Benny. Were there some really freakin' tough mobs out there? Sure. But stuff like Deathclaws are *SUPPOSED* to be an intimidating sight and tough battle (something which I always thought Fallout 3 addressed somewhat poorly). As for Fallout 3's story... /shrug. I felt mostly unengaged by it. I had more fun with the side quests. I felt no particular attachment to my father (other than that he was Liam-goddamn-Neeson!) whatsoever and couldn't have really cared less about the end result. Especially since Fallout 3 was trying to make his story feel like it had a degree of urgency which never materialized at all as I was wandering around the capital wastes and not heeding warnings to stay out of the basement.

While I do think Fallout 3 is a good game in its own right, I just never really felt as immersed in it as I have with all the other Fallouts (well... except for THAT one. You know the one, and if you don't know it, forget I mentioned it!).
 

Inkidu

New member
Mar 25, 2011
966
0
0
TU4AR said:
Inkidu said:
New Vegas: Get shot in head, track down Benny, most likely kill Benny (Benny gets crucified), decide which of four possible story arcs to complete, complete the arc, battle at Hoover Dam. Guess what. WATER!
Well to be fair, that's more about power than about water. Just because it involves water doesn't mean the main point is water.
You can't have the power without the water. Plus it has something to do with why Lake Mead is as clean as it is.
 

Inkidu

New member
Mar 25, 2011
966
0
0
TU4AR said:
Inkidu said:
You can't have the power without the water. Plus it has something to do with why Lake Mead is as clean as it is.
But it wasn't about the water per se. Without the physical damn, the water would mean nothing, and the fight would probably be over HELIOS ONE or something. And it seems that the water in general was a lot less irradiated in NV than 3. I wonder why?
Yeah, but even in a technical sense the water trumps the power. I'm just pointing out that you can't really hate on the story lines because the importance of water is a big thing. Three just made it kind of overt (well less overt than the first game). It's a common theme that both development staffs are aware of. That's all I'm saying.

I think because DC was probably hit very hard with nukes. That's the official explanation from most of the Obsidian team. It's a lot worse off and backward than the West because the west is relatively unscathed.
 

skennedy929

New member
Aug 25, 2010
158
0
0
My 2 cents.

I've played F2, F3, and NV. To me the more immersive, depressing, and well-crafted environment is the DC Ruins from F3.

Past that, however, NV is the better game, and in many ways a spiritual successor to Fallout 2. The side-quests are far more interesting, the dialog options are more robust and varied, the perks are also more varied with real in-game uses. No longer were Speech checks the only game in town, now medicine, barter, survival, etc come into play during dialog and add a much needed fleshing out of the perk system. Sneak, however, is still more or less useless.

The NV wasteland doesn't provide a stark enough contrast for hundred of years after nuclear apocalypse as much as the ruined Capital. Fallout 3 wasn't a horror game by any means, but had the ability to terrify and keep me at the edge of my seat. The underground DC Metro system was confusing, dark, and filled with enemies...yet was the only way to access certain areas. In my first ever playthrough of F3 I was stuck in the tunnels for hours and when I finally reached the surface I felt elated to see the sun again. Just then I was attacked by a half dozen super mutants as I had emerged on the National Mall. New Vegas is a great game, but nothing in it matches the feeling and atmosphere of Fallout 3.

Of course this still makes New Vegas more in line with Fallout 2. There's a ton of humor to be had, and a heaping amount of sci-fi pop-culture references. The communities actually feel like functional societies, instead of random NPCs hiding in buildings. I always thought the huge space of Rivet City, the aircraft carrier in F3, had a laughably scant amount of citizens. Couple this with the lighter approach of having functional Casinos, and little kitch western towns, and New Vegas is a less serious game than Fallout 3. Not as if that's a bad thing, the writing and dialog in New Vegas entirely owns anything in Fallout 3, and the less serious world they've created feels miles more alive and fleshed out than F3.

Maybe this is because I played F3 first, but I feel down the road in the future when I get the itch to revisit a Fallout game, it'll be Fallout 3.
 

Pointer

New member
Mar 19, 2010
78
0
0
Trull said:
I love both FO3 and FONV to death. Really, I'd kill for FO4, but you want the truth of why I like one more than the other? REALLY?! YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW?!

I LIKE FO:NV BETTER
FOR ONE REASON
It's on steam.

Other than that they're not comparable. Its like comparing L4D with RE - they both have the same concept (zombies/post apocalyptic world) but they're in a completely different world (for L4D and RE it's LITERALLY another world, in FO it's the fact that NV and the capital wasteland are so different to each other)
You really, really, really can't argue this considering that the two games are on the exact same engine, with the exact same combat, exact same interface, skill system, inventory system, GUI, and everything. While yes they exist in different worlds they all live in one continuity of a game universe. A stimpack is a stimpack is a stimpack.

Not comparing them is coping out, in either FO3 and FO:NV or your supposed metaphors. Hell, any game can be compared to any other game. What matters is whether or not comparing games makes sense. I would never compare Custer's Revenge and Limbo because it just doesn't really make sense. They are two games from two different eras with such different atmosphere and game play and message that there is little to say other than about how much gaming has grown since the time of Custer's Revenge.

This is not the case with the comparison the thread is making nor the comparison that you suggested. You can nitpick both for what they lack.