Fallout New Vegas

Recommended Videos

Irony's Acolyte

Back from the Depths
Mar 9, 2010
3,636
0
0
So long as its as good as Fallout 3, I'll be happy. And it looks like it might even be better. So I'm pretty interested in it right now.
 

-Drifter-

New member
Jun 9, 2009
2,521
0
0
Blatherscythe said:
Flying-Emu said:
luckycharms8282 said:
honestly, no I dont think it will be as good. It will possibly be awesome, but not the pure orgasm FO3 was
Whoa.

You'll have to remind me, when was F3 an orgasm?

The game was good, but... F2 was better :/
Okay, I'm sick of fanboys crying about how "Bethesda fucked up Fallout". Let's see, combat, F1-2 had turn based combat and had "dice rolls" for hit or miss, sure you could try VATS but it was still the same dice rolling crap, the winner was usually the guy with the better gun. Fallout 3 had real time combat, could pause to let the player pick body parts to cripple enemies to great effect, being less rigid meant more strategies could be incorporated, stealth may not be great but it's there, unlike 1-2 where you generally were not given said option in combat.
This just confuses me. Fallout 1/2's combat did revolve largely around stats, yes, but that doesn't mean tactics instantly flew out the window. The unforgiving difficulty meant that you had to think about your plan of attack, lest you be cut in half by Super Mutants.

Graphics, 3d vs 2d who wins?
Hmmm, let me think about this for a moment, I'm really having trouble deciding. Of course Fallout 3 looks better, it came out 10 years after the previous games. So what? It shouldn't be that hard to look past some out-dated graphics, and if it is then you really need to get your priorities straight.
Gameplay, F3 is much more action packed and can keep your attention longer than F1 or 2
Yes, I suppose it would be if you're a moron who can't pay attention to anything for more than 5 seconds if someone's head isn't exploding. One of the things people liked so much about the older games is that you could approach just about any given situation from multiple angles, instead of just resorting to murder every time.

Take off your damn nostalgia glasses, the only reason people who loved F1-2 like F:NV better than F3 is because some Obsidian employees are from Black Isle. God damn does it feel good to get that off my chest.
I take it you didn't notice that that the above person stated they played Fallout 2 after Fallout 3, and the same goes for me. People should really stop living under the assumption that just because something is old it's automatically bad.
 

-Drifter-

New member
Jun 9, 2009
2,521
0
0
EDIT: Goddammit, what is it with this site? Getting really tired of thinking my post disappeared only to post again and find I've double posted.
 

Teh Ty

New member
Sep 10, 2008
648
0
0
I dunno, I think they will end up being pretty equal, but with FO3 on top. The only question is: How much DLC will be out for New Vegas?
 

Drakmorg

Local Cat
Aug 15, 2008
18,504
0
0
I must say I've been looking forward to this game since the first time I read about it about...4 months ago. I admit, knowing that I would have the ability to hit people in the crotch with a golf club pretty much sold it for me.

I'm going to remember New Vegas as one of my most anticipated games ever, right up there with Mass Effect 2, Wrath of the Lich King (yes it's an expansion pack, but I'm still gonna count it), and the inevitable anticipation I'll feel once the trailers for Mass Effect 3 are released.
 

Sinisterair

New member
Oct 15, 2008
353
0
0
redbeta22 said:
Mr.PlanetEater said:
redbeta22 said:
Fallout New Vaegas: The Expansion pack that walks like a sequel. Fuck new Vegas.
Yes because a new story, new characters, new weapons, new developers, a new map that
is then Fallout 3' with no relation to Fallout 3 what so ever is definitely an expansion.
Then why isn't it called Fallout 4?
Thats like saying Gta San Andreas and Vice city were Expansions for Gta 3 Because they didnt have a Number. Everything but the look is new.

Edit, Ninja'd like a *****.....
 

IAmWright777

New member
Sep 25, 2009
137
0
0
mornal said:
My feelings are the opposite. FO3 was fun but it always felt like after a certain point there was no real reason to keep playing except to finish up quests. I'm hoping that New Vegas can avoid that feeling.
I agree completely.

I'm thinking it stands a good chance to be much more than Fallout 3
 

Sinisterair

New member
Oct 15, 2008
353
0
0
Baconmonster723 said:
The Bum said:
My joy at the fact that it's coming out in less than a week simply cannot be expresed in text.
Agreed. It's one of those there is not a word in spoken language that can express kinda things.
No words perhaps but a jumble of random Letters and excited noises Might compensate for the lack of said words......Also, ive had this game on reserve since june.....OMG!!!! cant wait...
 

demoman_chaos

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
It will be good. I recommend getting the PC version, if only for mods. Mods made Oblivion a lot funner (to me at least, I couldn't hardly play through the PS3 version).
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
luckycharms8282 said:
Flying-Emu said:
luckycharms8282 said:
honestly, no I dont think it will be as good. It will possibly be awesome, but not the pure orgasm FO3 was
Whoa.

You'll have to remind me, when was F3 an orgasm?

The game was good, but... F2 was better :/
Purely your opinion that F2 was better, just like it's my opinion that FO3 was a great game. Now Im pretty sure the OT asked for my opinion which I gave. Now lets quickly compare FO3 and F2, shall we?
F2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOpVmEqD-Co&feature=related
F3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFkMgksMB8o

Now, you make the claim that a game made in 1998 is BETTER than Fallout 3. I find it surprising you can even compare two games that were made a decade apart from each other.
Which is why we can empirically know that Baldur's Gate is utter shit...
luckycharms8282 said:
Probably the only reason you say F2 is better is because you played it as a child.
Ironically not. You see, when I was a child this new fangled thing called a Super Nintendo did not exist yet. So, no. I did not play Fallout 2 when I was a child.
luckycharms8282 said:
You now feel nostalgic whenever you think about it, and as time goes on you idealize the game and make it seem better than the pixelated nightmare that it really is.
Aw. That's so sad. You can't look at a game that wasn't released originally on the 360 without calling it a "pixelated nightmare?" You must be so deprived.

luckycharms8282 said:
Have I done a sufficient job reminding you, or do you want me to dedicate my afternoon to pleasing you?
Sure, why not. If you're up to the task.
 

Eumersian

Posting in the wrong thread.
Sep 3, 2009
18,754
0
0
I feel like it will play mostly the same as Fallout 3, with maybe a few minor but noticeable changes. Maybe slightly improved graphics, a new game mechanic, etc. But as long as they fix the bugs that (as of late in fact) would really annoy me, I'm fine with it.

Also, did it bother anybody else that sometimes in Fallout 3 there would be rocks or piles of rubble and one of the faces would be missing, so you just saw right through to the other side of the rock and to the ground? That really bothered me, and I'm not sure why.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
Blatherscythe said:
Flying-Emu said:
luckycharms8282 said:
honestly, no I dont think it will be as good. It will possibly be awesome, but not the pure orgasm FO3 was
Whoa.

You'll have to remind me, when was F3 an orgasm?

The game was good, but... F2 was better :/
Okay, I'm sick of fanboys crying about how "Bethesda fucked up Fallout".
'kay. Ya need me ta getcha a bucket or somethin'?
Blatherscythe said:
Let's see, combat, F1-2 had turn based combat and had "dice rolls" for hit or miss, sure you could try VATS but it was still the same dice rolling crap, the winner was usually the guy with the better gun.
That's funny. You see, VATS didn't exist in Fallout until Fallout 3. VATS, if you can grasp this concept, is a conceit to all of us old fogies who actually played the first two games and remember the robust nature of the turn based combat. Now, you could make called shots and put a load o' buckshot in some poor fucker's groin, but still. No VATS.
Blatherscythe said:
Fallout 3 had real time combat, could pause to let the player pick body parts to cripple enemies to great effect, being less rigid meant more strategies could be incorporated,
Like being able to make called shots? Sorry, that was in 1 and 2. How about the ability to set your assault rifle on semi auto? Because that WAS there in the original games, but it's gone from here. They trimmed down the actual range of actions in combat by a substantial margin, but, don't worry, its your own prejudiced perception that matters most, right?
Blatherscythe said:
stealth may not be great but it's there, unlike 1-2 where you generally were not given said option in combat.
Yeah, it works pretty much exactly as well in F3 as it did in the first two. The only one with a legitimate stealth mechanic was probably Tactics.

Blatherscythe said:
Graphics, 3d vs 2d who wins?
Whoever wins, we lose. :p
Blatherscythe said:
Gameplay, F3 is much more action packed and can keep your attention longer than F1 or 2,
...if you have attention span issues... and hate tactical variety...
Blatherscythe said:
I'd rather have an easier FPS than an unforgiving, isometric, turn based shooter.
All told this is personal preference. You can haz cookie.
Blatherscythe said:
Story wise is where a tie comes in. You may get more backstory and sub-plots in F1-2, but in the end all the stories are rather simple and straightforward. Not much in the way of plot characters either.
Yeah, I could see where someone would make this mistake. It'd be a pretty easy one to make even... if you didn't actually read anything.
Blatherscythe said:
Take off your damn nostalgia glasses, the only reason people who loved F1-2 like F:NV better than F3 is because some Obsidian employees are from Black Isle.
Well, that, and that Obsidian has been consistently turning out good RPGs with actual depth, and have been doing so basically since KOTOR2.
Blatherscythe said:
God damn does it feel good to get that off my chest.
...so... no boobs for you? :(
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
-Drifter- said:
EDIT: Goddammit, what is it with this site? Getting really tired of thinking my post disappeared only to post again and find I've double posted.
I know, right? It just stole one of mine. :(
 

Caligulust

New member
Apr 3, 2010
222
0
0
PC Gamer has instilled hope into me for this game. Though, I will wait for some reviews before buying it.
 

RelexCryo

New member
Oct 21, 2008
1,414
0
0
luckycharms8282 said:
honestly, no I dont think it will be as good. It will possibly be awesome, but not the pure orgasm FO3 was
I loved FO3, but I hated that the most epic revolver required you to make an evil choice to get it. I recently found out the single action revolver on the cover is the only one in the game, which really annoys me. I hope they add more in future expansions.

Sigh. But I am digressing. My point is that certain rewards could only be obtained by taking certain moral choices. You could only become a member of the regulators by being good, but you could only get Callahan's magnum by doing something evil. That is blatantly idiotic. I suppose you could kill the Regulators and take their stuff, but that just isn't the same as joining them and dispensing justice with your uber revolver. And if you want to be evil and live in Tenpenny Tower, you can't get a house where you can store things until after you have done Moira's quests, which prevents you from using DLC rewards like Wild Bill's revolver because by the time you have enough storage to hold all the awesome loot from the Pitt his revolver becomes crap.

Good and evil should be different flavors of obtaining a goal, not something that defines whether or not you can obtain a goal. Yatzhee was pretty ticked off when he found out being good prevented him from using Arc Lightning in InFamous. I felt the same way thoughout a lot of Fallout 3. Especially regarding companions. Why does being a good guy prevent you from having a hot, sexy companion? And no, I don't think Cross was sexy.

Meh.
 

Russian_Assassin

New member
Apr 24, 2008
1,849
0
0
Mr.PlanetEater said:
Yes because a new story, new characters, new weapons, new developers, a new map that
is then Fallout 3' with no relation to Fallout 3 what so ever is definitely an expansion.
It should also have a different engine, different language, different planet and it should also change it's name. Then it will be a sequel, according to our friend up there. And he also requires that it has the number 4 at the end. Now that's just trolling/stupid.

OT: I really look forward to New Vegas. I even dug up my Fallout 3 copy just to get into the post-apocalyptia vibe :D
 

viking97

New member
Jan 23, 2010
858
0
0
well they cracked the formula, basically all they have to do is stick it in a new location with some new weapons and new enemies and a new main story and we're all set.

on a related note, i can't wait for new vegas ^.^