Fallout New Vegas: Why all the hate?

[Echo136]

However, aesthetically, Fallout 3 had more going for it.

Yeah, that shapeless dark green mess of a wasteland was so much more aesthetically pleasing than the nice bright (and varied) colours of the Mojave. New Vegas has so much more than Fallout 3 aesthetically, simply because it does a wider variety of visuals and scenes.

And yet, when you walk down a bunch of ruined building in Fallout 3, chances are you might find a nifty item, quest, or easter egg in any one of them. In New Vegas there NOTHING in those apartments and abandoned factories. Nothing to explore. Your just trapped in a canyon with nothing to look at but the pretty lights of Vegas that get old after the first time you see it.

 

[katsabas]

I don't think it is hate. I didn't buy it cause it costs way too much for a game that looks and plays exactly like the previous one. It depends wholly on the person cause if one were to play NV and THEN FO3, he would probably say that NV is better. This is pretty understandable since I say the same about MW2's multiplayer when compared to the COD4 one.

I didn't even pay full price for the original game, I waited for the GOTY edition with all the expansions. I definitely wasn't gonna pay full price for NV. It also lacks the feel of desolation. Even in FO3 I never hang around other people too much and since the selling point of the name is post-nuke-Vegas, I wasn't intrigued. The city of Vegas in general didn't do it for me.

Besides, I am not tired of the game. I am level 21 and I still die, I haven't even started the Point Lookout quest and there are a ton of things that DC still has for me to see. And even when I will be tired of it, I don't plan on buying NV in the near future.

As to which one of the 2 is better, I can't say. I haven't played NV. But I think that when I will, it won't have the 'same wow factor' the original did.

 

[ChupathingyX]

And yet, when you walk down a bunch of ruined building in Fallout 3, chances are you might find a nifty item, quest, or easter egg in any one of them. In New Vegas there NOTHING in those apartments and abandoned factories. Nothing to explore. Your just trapped in a canyon with nothing to look at but the pretty lights of Vegas that get old after the first time you see it.

Reading your comments make me laugh.

The thing with New Vegas is it doesn't waste it's time being just a mindless looter simulator or dungeon crawler. When you explore buildings you can find hidden stories and messages in places, some are used by gangs as ambush sites, most do have unique items (which actually had unique skins) and there are many quests that start at locations or quests that involve you visiting a location.

Do you really think the objective of making the city of New Vegas was to just give you something pretty to look at? No, that isn't it's only objective, it;s supossed to show you the struggle for civilisation encountered in the Fallout world and the things mankind are willing to do to hold on what is left from the old world. America was destroyed because of greed and even now, more then 200 years after the apocalypse humanity has returned to it's roots of wanting all the power they can find and are willing to do anything to acquire it, even if that means killing civilians, enslaving people, forcefully taking over territory and exiling local tribes.

That's the point of the city of New Vegas, its story telling, not scenary porn or loot hoarding.

 

[hitman_7]

Here is my honest opinion:
In the same way Portal 2 is compared to Portal 1, Fallout New Vegas is very much compared to Fallout 3..
And if Portal 2 and FNV were the original of the series they would be praised as the good games they are!
I like to look at all games from a developer prespective. So everytime i play i game ,in the back of my head I´m thinking: "Oh they made it that so that the players could be able to perform the action.. Nice"
So this is what i though the developers of FNV did:
Dev1: Hello dev2
Dev2: Hello dev1
Dev1: Say, have u looked at this comments regarding Fallout 3?
Dev2: No, i haven´t what do they say?
Dev1: They are saying they loved it! And not just the critics the gamers actually enjoyed
Dev2: Thats amazing! Who would have thought that was possible. Do u know what we should do?
Dev1: What?
Dev2: Seeing that they loved the third lets make a new game, completely unchaged, only with some new features that no one gives a toss about it
Dev1: Why would u want to do that?
Dev2: To get more money out of the players
Dev1: You´re right! Money is all that matters and seeing that it will be virtually the same game we dont even need to spend a lot of money doing it ourselfs..

And P.S. The assassins Creed Brotherhood and Reveletions are exactly the same thing (Just with multiplayer)

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

My only real problem with FONV was that it was completely and utterly broken. I played it right after it was released, before the so-called miracle fix, so it broke a lot. Lots of freezing, stuttering, and more than 50% of the time I started the game, there was no sound, which required a lot of resetting.

So much of the game was spent in a state of terror at the possibility of the game freezing the next time I went through a door, so I ended up having to save constantly, and the whole thing was tedious.

I've now got the game for the 360, and I do intend to give it another shot now that it's supposedly much better.

 

[Echo136]

And yet, when you walk down a bunch of ruined building in Fallout 3, chances are you might find a nifty item, quest, or easter egg in any one of them. In New Vegas there NOTHING in those apartments and abandoned factories. Nothing to explore. Your just trapped in a canyon with nothing to look at but the pretty lights of Vegas that get old after the first time you see it.

Reading your comments make me laugh.

The thing with New Vegas is it doesn't waste it's time being just a mindless looter simulator or dungeon crawler. When you explore buildings you can find hidden stories and messages in places, some are used by gangs as ambush sites, most do have unique items (which actually had unique skins) and there are many quests that start at locations or quests that involve you visiting a location.

Do you really think the objective of making the city of New Vegas was to just give you something pretty to look at? No, that isn't it's only objective, it;s supossed to show you the struggle for civilisation encountered in the Fallout world and the things mankind are willing to do to hold on what is left from the old world. America was destroyed because of greed and even now, more then 200 years after the apocalypse humanity has returned to it's roots of wanting all the power they can find and are willing to do anything to acquire it, even if that means killing civilians, enslaving people, forcefully taking over territory and exiling local tribes.

That's the point of the city of New Vegas, its story telling, not scenary porn or loot hoarding.

You say its not scenery porn, and yet the #1 complaint I ever read about Fallout 3 is its lack of scenery. Not story. Not gameplay. Scenery. They make the sequel all about Vegas, an area of the country filled with decadence, debauchery, and enough bright lights to flood the sky for miles and your telling me its not scenery porn? Dont be ridiculous.

 

[ChupathingyX]

You say its not scenery porn, and yet the #1 complaint I ever read about Fallout 3 is its lack of scenery. Not story. Not gameplay. Scenery. They make the sequel all about Vegas, an area of the country filled with decadence, debauchery, and enough bright lights to flood the sky for miles and your telling me its not scenery porn? Dont be ridiculous.

I don't know about other people but that isn't my no. 1 complaint about Fallout 3.

My complaints are aimed mainly at the stupidity, lore screwups, characters, morality and story of Fallout 3, not the scenary.

 

[Echo136]

You say its not scenery porn, and yet the #1 complaint I ever read about Fallout 3 is its lack of scenery. Not story. Not gameplay. Scenery. They make the sequel all about Vegas, an area of the country filled with decadence, debauchery, and enough bright lights to flood the sky for miles and your telling me its not scenery porn? Dont be ridiculous.

I don't know about other people but that isn't my no. 1 complaint about Fallout 3.

My complaints are aimed mainly at the stupidity, lore screwups, characters, morality and story of Fallout 3, not the scenary.

Personally, I could care less about the lore screwups. I had never even heard of the Fallout series until Fallout 3. And when I went back and played Fallout 1, I didnt like it.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Personally, I could care less about the lore screwups. I had never even heard of the Fallout series until Fallout 3. And when I went back and played Fallout 1, I didnt like it.

The point still remains that they did screw up the lore and made many stupid decisions.

The GECK, Little Lamplight, The Power of the Atom quest and the ending are all good examples.

 

[rt052192]

I love both games each for different reasons. I might actually have more time played with New Vegas. So many options to beat the game and it has kept me hooked.

 

[70R4N]

FO3's wasteland didn't paint everything in Boring Brown, and yet still captured the post-apocolyptic feel just as well.

No, Fallout 3's wasteland was boring brown tinted green. New Vegas was in a desert, and even then there were some areas with contrast (The Strip, Jacobstown). There were freaking trees in New Vegas, why wasn't there trees in 3?

Edit: And yes, I'm aware of Oasis, but still there is no reason for there not to be natural growing trees.

wow. just wow. No. 1... post apocalypse much? it is almost impossible for non-hardy plant-life to grow so soon after a nuclear holocaust, and even if there were trees, they would have to be manipulated to be able to stand the radiation; hence the FEV/Harold/GECK...

oh... and also, how does a desert feel apocalyptic exactly; (if there isnt any elements that would suggest so) raiders, etc,etc, there isnt much life in the mojave, and even so, the life IMO isnt integrated very well, they dont feel like they would actually fit in that environment.

California had trees in 2242. They spread pretty damn fast.

This is Pripyat, a town near Chernobyl. >.>

 

[Justyn Stahll]

I loved New Vegas the only problem I had was the instability of the game. I couldn't actually finish the game because it froze in a doorway in New Vegas and it auto saved in the door when it froze. Also side-note I was playing the 360 version.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I really love FNV, especially after the patch making everything do more damage and consequently, making enemies do more damage to you and you do more damage to them.
But anyway, to me, Fallout 3 is the inferior game with a sub-par storyline and a more annoying repair and skill-check system.

 

[JoJo]

Fallout 3 had: better atmosphere and player character, deeper immerision,larger map, less boring NPCs you couldn't speak to, a more useful town for being based in (Megaton)

Actually the maps are different shapes and can't really be accuractely compared,

F3 had a square shaped map whereas New Vegas had a more rectangular map that wasn't as perfectly shaped as F3's.

So no it didn't necessarily have a larger map size.

The maps were certainly different shapes but Fallout 3's was far bigger, especially as you couldn't even access large parts of the NV map. Of course on the flipside NV had more stuff in the area it had and overall I prefer that one but it can't be denied 3 had a massive expanse even if a lot of it didn't contain much.

 

[Your Nightmare]

I've never seen anyone who liked it better than Fallout 3.

Than allow me to be the first.

New Vegas rocked FO3.

My main beef with New Vegas (besides the occasional crashes) was that the 'normal' mode was actually 'easy' mode and 'harcore' was 'normal'. The second largest problem was the too tied-down final plotline. Why couldn't I become the ruler of the Strip, while having excellent relations with the NCR and let them deal with everything not directly within the walls of Vegas? It was either NCR takes over everything, Legion takes over everything, or you let Yes-man take over everything (in your name).

Otherwise, I loved it. Loved the humour, the quests, the wacky pieces of dialoque and funny items and movie/book references found all over the place. Whereas FO3 was good, but it wasn't Fallout - it was more Wasteland Survival. It didn't have the magnetism.

I don't think hardcore mode is a difficulty. It just adds all of those survival elements. You could play on easy difficulty and hardcore mode at the same time. It's just up to you to decide on that.

I prefer both games just the same. I don't really have a preference, it just feels like playing F3 disc 2.

 

[ChupathingyX]

The maps were certainly different shapes but Fallout 3's was far bigger, especially as you couldn't even access large parts of the NV map. Of course on the flipside NV had more stuff in the area it had and overall I prefer that one but it can't be denied 3 had a massive expanse even if a lot of it didn't contain much.

But that's the thing, you could explore those mountainous section sof the NV map which made it rectangular, basically NV is taller than 3 but 3 is wider... I think. But it really doesn't matter because F1 and 2 had maps that were way bigger than F3 or NV.

 

[JoJo]

The maps were certainly different shapes but Fallout 3's was far bigger, especially as you couldn't even access large parts of the NV map. Of course on the flipside NV had more stuff in the area it had and overall I prefer that one but it can't be denied 3 had a massive expanse even if a lot of it didn't contain much.

But that's the thing, you could explore those mountainous section sof the NV map which made it rectangular, basically NV is taller than 3 but 3 is wider... I think. But it really doesn't matter because F1 and 2 had maps that were way bigger than F3 or NV.

Never played 1 and 2, they aren't really comparable as they were designed very differently.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

I certain