Differences in Quest Philosophy and Writing

[SiriusShenanigans]

I bet you would think this would be about Fallout 3 vs New Vegas quest design, but I don't like beating a dead horse.

I was having a conversation with somebody recently about classic fallout vs New Vegas, and to me as good as New Vegas can be, I often find that it doesn't engage me in the same way that old fallout did. When I ask people what they think a good quest in New Vegas is, people give me examples like "Beyond the Beef". Now personally, I hate Beyond the Beef. I think its a boring quest, but to many people this exemplifies what people think of being great about New Vegas, and it got me thinking.

New Vegas is not my favorite fallout, but I can definitely see its value. I think what stands out to me with Fallout New Vegas is that it has a substantial amount of detail that derives itself from research. There is still an emphasis on pervasive themes that you wouldn't find in Fallout 3 or 4, and I think it shares this quality with 1 and 2.

I think this ultimately lends itself to being convincing. I feel like this is an important term because it denotes that things are believable and real, and this is important for keeping people on board in a story. New Vegas is very at this and spends a lot of time fleshing out aspects of factions and npcs and how they interlock with other features of their world. That said, why does it not resonate with me the same way?

I feel that all good writing needs to be convincing, but also needs to be surprising, and thats a difficult line to walk. Fallout 2 is my favorite, and I think one of its greatest strengths is its ability to surprise and amaze. It is a weird fallout. It ventures often into the surreal and really loves to present intrigue. I think that Fallout 2 is a master of surprise. I don't think it lacks in convincing material, but I feel that when I talk to folks who don't like fallout 2, that seems to be one of their problems. They can't buy things like ghosts or talking death claws or any number of weird things in the wasteland.

I think this is an interesting topic because people seem to bunch NV in with classic fallout alot, but there is still a distinct difference in them. I have no doubt in my mind that NV has more options for different routes in its quests allowing for lots of different ways to replay them, but I also feel it doesn't invest as much in the underlying intrigue of its world. It doesn't take much to guess that White Glove are cannibals, its not hard to see Gommorah as being full of legion sympathizers. There are a lot of groups that don't have a deeper darker secret that is that hard to see.

Meanwhile, while Fallout 2 does have options for replayability, I don't think it can really compare with NV, but I don't think that is a downside. It has quests that end up being more about the mystery than it is about the solution. I love the gold watch quest in modoc, but I was arguing with somebody who was saying that it was a simple quest with no tangents or work to it. Its not a great quest for replaying, but thats because its all about that first play. Nobody thinks to check the outhouse first, and the hints are scattered within other information blaming other npcs and stories about a chicken that rips off arms. It encourages you to wander and try stuff out. Interrogate towns members, sneak into their rooms, try to see if you can pickpocket them and find out if they have it. Explore everything until you run out of options and start considering the weird. That's the sort of roleplaying that is harder to do the second time, but that first play through is incredibly satisfying. There a more things in fallout that have large world implications. Its not just that bishops are working with the NCR to pressure Vault City into a deal, but they are also trying to shape what kind of NCR becomes popularized. Its not just a matter of the Salvators having weapons, its about questioning where they got it and what price they paid. Those are interesting hooks that keep you coming back.

Anyway, I was just wondering what other people thought about this. Tell me your thoughts and tell me what you think of New Vegas quests. I'm sure there will be quite some refutation of my points.

 

[naossano]

Not quite about quest themselves, but as a tangeant, FoNV lacks flavor npc, compared with the classics, or even some of the spin-off.

While the main characters of the faction are well done, the game are lacking of other npc to talk with (varies from one location to another). More often than not, you have the leadership and the extra, but nothing in between.

Those secondary npc usually add up to what it feels like to live in that settlement or this settlements, or provide clues for quests.

 

[SquidWard]

I can agree that New Vegas doesn't push you into a situation that requires you to "explore everything until you run out of options and start considering the weird" like you said. But I think a reason for that is the market. They not only are selling this game to a newer generation of people but also people who played and enjoyed Fallout 3. If New Vegas required you to think more outside of the box and weird too often or if it didn't use quest markers the game might have been received more poorly.

Fallout 1 and 2 were selling to people who played more cRPGs and likely tabletop games where they took notes and maybe did things like even making their own maps based of a DM's description of towns and countries.