Fallout New Vegas - basically the same as Fallout 3

[martin's a madman]

It's a sequel. I'm not worried and would welcome it to be very similar to Fallout 3. But they have definitely not just Re-skinned it. Survival mode? That's a huge game changing mechanic that if used would give you an entirely different experience.

 

[NoNameMcgee]

What worries me the most is that it's by Obsidian... I gotta be honest and say I have no experience with their games, but with what I have heard about the recent Alpha Protocol it sounds like it might not be so great.

 

[regallmighty]

It doesnt look like its worth purchesing at full price for sure, maybe when its down to like 30$ I will buy it

 

[ultimateownage]

What's wrong with that? And the game has new characters, settings, weapons, options, story lines and title, so the only thing the same is the engine and feel of the game. Why would you want a sequel to deviate from the one before it? Fallout 3 was brilliant.

 

[IxionIndustries]

ker-snip

Fallout 3 had an orange display mode too.

Could you, y'know, maybe check out the features of the new game before ranting about it?

Wow.. You obviously did not get the joke, but what the fuck ever.

Also, new features like what? All I have seen so far is new guns going shooty shoot at new monster that go "Ooogity-boogity!". And heres the joke, since you obviously didn't catch it the first damn time: This time your in an ORANGE wasteland instead of BROWN!. Did you get that? Because it's right up front.

Also, like I said, maybe I'm fucking wrong. But from what I'm seeing, it's just fucking DLC. That's it.

EDIT: And before you start nagging me out some more, why don't we just respect eachother's opinions and move on?
Because I've dealt with this shit in the actual New Vegas thread, and I reeeaaally don't feel like arguing on the interwebz this morning.

 

[Bland_Boy]

It is basically the same, judging from the videos out there.

In response to a lot of posts here that it looks the same because it has
"the same engine" this is bollocks.

A game with say,
"Mario Galaxy's Engine(I like using Galaxy as an example for almost anything in gaming)"
can look a vastly different game, it's about a lot of things,
design of buildings, enemies, characters, guns, objects, general scenery, etc.

there's no reason in 2 years, with an Engine already in place that a developer can't make a game at the least look different from its predecessor.

 

[Jadak]

To me, a new Fallout game only needs a new story. A new world to explore, new quests, new stuff to find, and just generally as detailed of a world as possible. If the gameplay, weapons, and enemies were all exactly the same, that's fine with me.

 

[Jadak]

To me, a new Fallout game only needs a new story. A new world to explore, new quests, new stuff to find, and just generally as immersive of a world as possible. If the gameplay, weapons, and enemies were all exactly the same, that's fine with me.

 

[MurderousToaster]

They did actually say that it wasn't going to be that different. They never said that it was going to be revolutionizing the Fallout series or anything of that sort.

Personally, I loved FO3 and moar FO3 cannot be a bad thing.

 

[adderseal]

More Fallout 3 is good! I'd happily buy it! 3 years down the line off the preowned pile, of course, like I did with Fallout 3, but it's still good!

 

[Bland_Boy]

What's wrong with that? And the game has new characters, settings, weapons, options, story lines and title, so the only thing the same is the engine and feel of the game. Why would you want a sequel to deviate from the one before it? Fallout 3 was brilliant.

We want the game to at least sound AND look different for it to be considered anything
other than an expansion pack.

"Left 4 Dead" to "Left 4 Dead 2" is a great example from this generation of gaming
of what should've been an expansion pack released as a full game.

 

[nicholaxxx]

It's not like Fallout 3 was a bad game, it was actually my favorite game of that year, and I know several people who will say the same thing. I'll be picking it up on launch, anyway.

 

[ultimateownage]

What's wrong with that? And the game has new characters, settings, weapons, options, story lines and title, so the only thing the same is the engine and feel of the game. Why would you want a sequel to deviate from the one before it? Fallout 3 was brilliant.

We want the game to at least sound AND look different for it to be considered anything
other than an expansion pack.

"Left 4 Dead" to "Left 4 Dead 2" is a great example from this generation of gaming
of what should've been an expansion pack released as a full game.

Jesus christ I thought this Left 4 Dead bullshit died ages ago. Left 4 Dead 2 was fine has a stand alone game, that's like saying halo 2, 3, odst and reach should have all been expansion packs, because they only added new characters, missions, plots and weapons. Just because a game isn't completely different doesn't mean it isn't worth your money, get the fuck over it.

 

[Mcface]

It's a sequel? How the hell could a Fallout game look anything other than a wasteland?

The devs themselves said the world would look different and they were using a wide range of colors, they didn't if we take info from the video, its all one really ugly light brown. seeing as NV wasn't directly hit by a nuclear missile like D.C was, there would be some vegetation, etc. From what we've seen that's not true, it's a, you guessed it, desert. Nevada has no freaking plant life, the place is barren.. not a very good place to "change it up"

 

[Mcface]

What's wrong with that? And the game has new characters, settings, weapons, options, story lines and title, so the only thing the same is the engine and feel of the game. Why would you want a sequel to deviate from the one before it? Fallout 3 was brilliant.

We want the game to at least sound AND look different for it to be considered anything
other than an expansion pack.

"Left 4 Dead" to "Left 4 Dead 2" is a great example from this generation of gaming
of what should've been an expansion pack released as a full game.

Jesus christ I thought this Left 4 Dead bullshit died ages ago. Left 4 Dead 2 was fine has a stand alone game, that's like saying halo 2, 3, odst and reach should have all been expansion packs, because they only added new characters, missions, plots and weapons. Just because a game isn't completely different doesn't mean it isn't worth your money, get the fuck over it.

Except L4D2 COULD have been DLC, it just added the guns Valve promised would be added into L4D 1

 

[ultimateownage]

What's wrong with that? And the game has new characters, settings, weapons, options, story lines and title, so the only thing the same is the engine and feel of the game. Why would you want a sequel to deviate from the one before it? Fallout 3 was brilliant.

We want the game to at least sound AND look different for it to be considered anything
other than an expansion pack.

"Left 4 Dead" to "Left 4 Dead 2" is a great example from this generation of gaming
of what should've been an expansion pack released as a full game.

Jesus christ I thought this Left 4 Dead bullshit died ages ago. Left 4 Dead 2 was fine has a stand alone game, that's like saying halo 2, 3, odst and reach should have all been expansion packs, because they only added new characters, missions, plots and weapons. Just because a game isn't completely different doesn't mean it isn't worth your money, get the fuck over it.

Except L4D2 COULD have been DLC, it just added the guns Valve promised would be added into L4D 1

Dude, it added a LOT more than just guns. The l4d argument is fatally flawed, it was enough to make it a new game. Not a full price game, but a game nonetheless. The rifles and primary weapons could have been DLC, but most of the rest couldn't have been.

 

[FaceFaceFace]

Similar mechanics, similar gameplay, in a similarly sized, but new, world and with a new story. DLC has spoiled you people, that's what a same-gen sequel is. Did KoTOR 2 not count as a sequel because it used the same in-game systems, the same graphics, and the same engine? It had a new set of characters, was a new adventure with a new story and new locations, therefore, a sequel.

 

[MatParker116]

This is a bad thing?

 

[Mcface]

What's wrong with that? And the game has new characters, settings, weapons, options, story lines and title, so the only thing the same is the engine and feel of the game. Why would you want a sequel to deviate from the one before it? Fallout 3 was brilliant.

We want the game to at least sound AND look different for it to be considered anything
other than an expansion pack.

"Left 4 Dead" to "Left 4 Dead 2" is a great example from this generation of gaming
of what should've been an expansion pack released as a full game.

Jesus christ I thought this Left 4 Dead bullshit died ages ago. Left 4 Dead 2 was fine has a stand alone game, that's like saying halo 2, 3, odst and reach should have all been expansion packs, because they only added new characters, missions, plots and weapons. Just because a game isn't completely different doesn't mean it isn't worth your money, get the fuck over it.

Except L4D2 COULD have been DLC, it just added the guns Valve promised would be added into L4D 1

Dude, it added a LOT more than just guns. The l4d argument is fatally flawed, it was enough to make it a new game. Not a full price game, but a game nonetheless. The rifles and primary weapons could have been DLC, but most of the rest couldn't have been.

Valve said day one "Within a month or two we will release content packs, and support the game into the distant future" They added -nothing-.
There are mods that bring the L4D2 special infected into L4D1, as well as the new guns. It could have easily been DLC, or at least a hald priced expansion.