Fallout 1 or Fallout New Vegas?

[Risewild]

Is this stated in game? I believe that the creator of Cazadors is introduced in one of the expansions.

It's stated on a Loading Screen Message:

Cazadores are a new predator in the Mojave Wasteland and often fight with Night Stalkers over their prey.

Also the Graphic Novel "All Roads" shows what happened at that location before the Cazadores go there. That was when Benny was looking for the Courier, several days to maybe a week before the start of New Vegas (Courier wakes up in Doc Mitchell's). This is corroborated in-game by having "relatively fresh" bodies (instead of advanced decomposing or just skeletons):

Spoiler: Ingame Picture

Goodsprings is a town settled more than 7 years ago (when Trudy says she took over the Saloon). People already lived there before that, because she says that Victor's owner used to live with Victor's in their shack, but the owner was already gone after she got to Goodsprings (She never met the owner):

Courier: How long has he (Victor) been in Goodsprings?
Trudy: It was here when I took over the saloon seven years ago. Some people have said its owner lived here, but no one knows who it was.

The Cazadores being there is quite recent compared to when Goodsprings was settled.

 

[Lexx]

Same about the Deathclaws, which moved into the quarry not too long ago. So it's really not "hey, there's deathclaws! How about we settle here?"
Putting up hastily crafted signs makes sense and has a logical ground in the games universe.
(Not sure why this is even argued about... is it really that hard to understand?)

 

[Norzan]

Imagine travelling to Deathclaw cave in F1 only to find that there is a "keep out" sign outside the cave instead of egg shells and a dead mutant inside.

If the sign was far away enough from the cave, it would do a much better job than egg shells on the ground. Then people would go away instead of probably dying if they saw the egg shells. Because seeing the egg shells would require them to be too close to the cave to even know of its dangers. The sign warning about Cazadores is far away enough for the people who read it to be in a safe place and not risk getting killed by them.

Don't really know what is your issue with this and why you are even arguing against it. Putting signs telling people to not go into dangerous areas is a logical thing.

 

[Risewild]

I agree.

The signs aren't there just for the player, they are there as "world building". Caravans pass by Goodsprings on their way to and from NV, so placing signs and having some people comment about keeping clear of the dangerous areas that were relatively safe until a short time ago makes sense in terms of the world being alive.

Caravans that always traveled those routes would have no way of knowing they are now deadly without the signs. So they would see them and go to Goodsprings or Sloan and ask why these roads are dangerous.

 

[SquidWard]

I am not saying that dead bodies/skeletons should replace Cazadors.

I'm not saying you did. I'm saying that between signs that say keep out and visual indicators that display danger that aren't signs, Fallout 3 players aren't going to give a damn either way.

That would never, ever work that well. I'd actually argue that it would have the reverse effect, as players are conditioned to investigate dead stuff for loot.

This is what I was saying.

You can't ignore that the context of New Vegas was a contracted game to serve Bethesda customers between games. It's neat that they got Obsidian's team of people on it that had some old Fallout workers on it but that didn't stop them from using the same frame for Fallout 3 or needing to accommodate to those players as well to keep Bethesda happy.

We've all said the same things multiple times at this point. It should be obvious. Dangerous animals moved into the area after the humans settled there. Humans don't see predators and think to build there.

 

[VaultNoodles]

I love fallout 1, but I've put way more hours into New Vegas so I would probably lean in that direction. It's hard to objectively compare them as far as gameplay, as they're radically different and both games are functional for what they are. Personally I find the gameplay of New Vegas to be more immersive and engaging but since both games function properly, I think it's a matter of personal taste. It could also be a generational thing. I imagine that people who grew up playing old style CRPGs will probably be more comfortable with that than with first person, action oriented gameplay.

As for everything else, I like that stuff almost equally. I think New Vegas does individual characters better, the atmosphere is similar in both games, though I find the plot of Fallout 1 to be slightly more interesting. It could be that I enjoy how you're intended to be out of your element, whereas the courier should be pretty experienced with the wasteland given their occupation and backstory.

Edit: I'd also like to add that I think the design choices of new vegas end up being much closer to fallout 2. I'm not sure if that's my imagination or if other people picked up on it as well.

Overall I've still put more hours into new vegas so I'll just say that.

 

[Drakortha]

New Vegas is the best Fallout game.

Fallout 1 comes second, and is still one of my all time favorite games. I first played it when I was around 7 or 8 years old - my uncle gave me his copy on CD and it quickly became my absolute favorite PC game at the time (my 2nd favorite game was Resident Evil 1/2/3 on PS1).

But it's an old game now and I don't play it nearly as much as I did back then, which was pretty much every day I could.

Fast forward to Fallout 3/New Vegas I wasn't even paying attention to the developments on New Vegas. I must have thought it would just be some kind of spin off and maybe I'll get around to playing it at some point. I remember picking it up probably a month after launch just to check it out. Little did I know what I was in for.

Immediately got drawn in from the introduction and the first few hours around Goodsprings and the surrounding area. Then running into groups like the NCR, Gun Runners, and the Brotherhood done right (I'm looking at you, Fallout 3) and all the rest of it.. I felt like holy shit, I'm playing the continuation of the series I always dreamed of. I was playing Fallout. I was home (fuck you 76)

I enjoy replaying New Vegas more than Fallout 1 these days because it's just not as old as that game and it's got years of lore and story to build upon - which I think makes for a more interesting setting and scenario, building upon the humble beginnings of the series. I also have to mention the charm the game has, from the soundtrack to the memorable characters. Unforgettable, all of it. It hits all the right notes for me.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Fallout 1 is the only game in the series that I have finished more than twice; Fallout 2 I have finished twice.

*I have not gotten far in any of the other games (by choice; the gameplay just kills the fun for me)—though I probably have 100 hours in the GECKS of FO3 & New Vegas.

**As far as FPS gameplay goes though... I have enjoyed playing shooters for 24-hour sessions before; and will still play for hours in a good FPS game. But FPS is not for Fallout. [IMO]

 

[Ediros]

To add to The discussion, Fallout 1 I have finished once. It was a Good experience and I can understand why People like it so much. I can't say I enjoyed The gameplay. It was alright, but New Vegas was better for me.

Even with gamebryo limitations, I have got over 1000 hours. Two never finished, didnt click with me.

So for me it's Fallout New Vegas > Fallout 1 > Fallout 2 > everything else.

 

[scorptatious]

I have a hard time deciding really.

New Vegas I played first and it has some sentimental value to me. It actually got me to try out the older games.

1 though has probably the tightest written story and has a unique atmosphere that hasn’t been replicated in the other games.

I do love New Vegas for it’s large scale conflict, the vast amount of role playing possibilities and the large amount of awesome characters

I do feel 1 and 2 generally have mechanics I prefer. (Having a number of companions based on your Charisma for example). Although thanks to mods like CCO and other kinds of mods it’s possible to replicate a lot of said mechanics into NV, bringing the best of both the isometric games and the FPS games.

I get modding doesn’t necessarily excuse a lot of the inherent issues NV had. But I do feel like with the Restoration Project with 2 and stuff like FIXT and Et Tu for 1, it brings out NV’s potential and makes the stuff that shines for me in that game shine even brighter.

So overall, I guess NV=1>2.

 

[necrosis]

Fallout 1 has a more dark, wasteland vibe to it. People are less trust worthy, and such. It is a better RPG, and it also started off the whole Fallout series. Fallout 1 is also my personal favorite Fallout game.
Fallout: New Vegas is the best shooter game they made. It stays true to the spirit of Fallout 1 and 2 where as I find Fallout 3 and 4 fall short of capturing the same style and vibe of the original two games.
Fallout 1, would be my vote.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Personally I find the gameplay of New Vegas to be more immersive and engaging but since both games function properly, I think it's a matter of personal taste. It could also be a generational thing.

Personal taste cannot be argued, but gameplay can, and none of the Fallout titles that followed Fallout 2 have appropriate gameplay—even (or regardless) if one's taste prefers ISO/TB, FPP, or even outright FPS over RPG gameplay. It's not better if it's not even related to the source material. That's akin to someone making the claim that the game Spacemarine is a —better— Dawn of War; those games merely share the same IP setting.

Spoiler

*Intended only to be skimmed through (long videos), for those who don't know these games & gameplay.

 

[Yamu]

Space Marine doesn't claim to be a Dawn of War title, though-- it would be like saying Space Marine was a better Warhammer game, two different titles under the same franchise. Even that isn't a perfect analogy, as they're not mainline titles of the same series; it'd be more like saying that Grand Theft Auto 4 is better than Grand Theft Auto 2, or that Final Fantasy X2 is a better game than Final Fantasy IV-- which, although some people would write you out of their wills for thinking, would not be a falsely premised argument.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Space Marine doesn't claim to be a Dawn of War title, though--

But of course; that's a given. However, have we not all seen posts that lean towards the later FO games being superior for what amounts to that exact [but erroneous] claim?
*Specifically the change to FPP/realtime, and its (arguably out of place) increased immersiveness.

In the case of the above [Spacemarine] analogy, it is the same in some respects; the action is reduced to a single warrior's up-close-and-personal view —for greater immersiveness, but lacking the overarching view and control of the larger battle—which is intrinsic gameplay to DoW. The later Fallout games are missing intrinsic elements of the series' gameplay; in some cases substituting polar opposite gameplay rather than mere omission.

FO3 plays like a digital cosplay; FO4 appears to even further reduce the importance of the character identity.

 

[Yamu]

We have, yes, but with all due respect that's not substantive to the point you're trying to make. Again, see Grand Theft Auto or Final Fantasy, or any of several other long-running series that started back in the days of primitive design. Mainline game series sometimes see their core systems change radically between iterations, especially if there's a big time gap between titles.

Whether we like it or not, the developers are the ones who determine which are "real" titles. Trying to discount the black and white facts by calling them an opinion and positing your opinion as the only acceptable fact does a disservice to the conversation.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Aha. Our points are not the same. As I interpret it, you are describing how later GTA's are better GTA's due to tackling the core conceptual experience with better technology, and I agree. But FO3 (and the games that follow it) are not even attempting to tackle the conceptual experience of the Fallout series.

They are delivering the core gameplay experience of the Elder Scrolls games, given a new coat of paint as Fallout titles. Fallout is a respected RPG for reasons that would irk the hell out of TES players.

In effect, Bethesda makes the video game equivalent of the the themed parks as seen in the original film, Westworld. The players (for the most part) are on vacation in the park; dressed as mages, and fighters, and Vault Dwellers.

Fallout 1 is a window into the world of a native inhabitant. The PC is free to act (within their ability), but is also subject to the consequences of their past. A core tenet of FO3 is that all is forgiven in three days.

The FO3 player [character] can actually shoot the Brotherhood gate guard in the face, in front of witnesses, and return later to ask admittance, and to join the Brotherhood. Now... one can argue that this is its own style of technology limitation, but I don't believe for an instant that Bethesda would change it even if they could.

Recall that people replayed Fallout to assuage their conscience after discovering the outcome of some of their actions. Consider that Pete Hines stated that Bethesda will never surprise the player, and will always make the intent and outcome of their choice [pitiably] clear to the player.

 

[Yamu]

I get what you're saying, and you'd find me in your corner if you were articulating any of those points individually. I probably should have quoted you directly to avoid muddying the waters, sorry. My point was that you argued:

Personal taste cannot be argued, but gameplay can, and none of the Fallout titles that followed Fallout 2 have appropriate gameplay (...) It's not better if it's not even related to the source material.

... when "appropriate gameplay" and "related to the source material" are themselves strongly subjective matters of personal taste. New Vegas is related to the source material in innumerable ways. Perhaps perspective, combat mechanics, and the inability of anyone in the wasteland to ever forgive any transgression against their faction are integral to a Fallout title to you, but to others, sharing a writing style, design philosophy, canon, and continuity were more than enough, especially considering it was the first game in the series that's shared those things with Fallout 1 and 2 in a decade.

As established in this thread, there are a lot of things New Vegas does better than Fallout itself, some of them at the heart of the series' design principles. To argue that none of those things could possibly qualify it as a superior Fallout game simply because of the engine and POV differences is to argue that it couldn't even be a better Fallout game than Tactics-- or Lionheart, for that matter.

 

[Gizmojunk]

New Vegas is related to the source material in innumerable ways. Perhaps perspective, combat mechanics, and the inability of anyone in the wasteland to ever forgive any transgression against their faction are integral to a Fallout title to you, but to others, sharing a writing style, design philosophy, canon, and continuity were more than enough, especially considering it was the first game in the series that's shared those things with Fallout 1 and 2 in a decade.

But these latter points are not gameplay. It's the same with the Warhammer games; they share the setting, canon, continuity... reasonably enough, but they are unrelated games aside from the IP setting. Spacemarine does not have the gameplay of a Dawn of War sequel, nor vice versa. Of course they are not trying to either, but the point was about the belief that a mechanically unrelated game [skinned in the same IP] was a superior example of the concept; perhaps even a better example of how the original should have been, had they been able to at the time... but that's intrinsically false when the new gameplay ignores, or even opposes the original concept.

In New Vegas' case, they were certainly under Bethesda's thumb, and forced to use FO3 as their foundation. What they did was outshine Bethesda at their own game; using their own toolset. But it was still FO3.1 in terms of mechanics. They added some neat features to it, but it was at most a half step in the direction of Fallout 2.

Imagine a TES 6 that surpasses all previous TES games in writing, lore, interactivity, and customization of the PC... but mechanically restricts to a class, and limits the player by their past choices in the various guilds; and for that matter, is seen in fixed isometric. It would miss the mark on all aspects of the series gameplay, and core concept.

As established in this thread, there are a lot of things New Vegas does better than Fallout itself, some of them at the heart of the series' design principles. To argue that none of those things could possibly qualify it as a superior Fallout game simply because of the engine and POV differences is to argue that it couldn't even be a better Fallout game than Tactics-- or Lionheart, for that matter.

I am fine with the engine [Gamebryo], just not fine with how it was used for these Fallout games.

Loki uses Gamebryo as well; a contemporary of TES:Oblivion


*Not turn based, but it certainly could have been, so it's easy to imagine Van Buren or the Troika Tech Demo running on the Gamebryo engine.

 

[Norzan]

The problem with the shift from isometric turn based to FPS is that the latter is worse at conveying rpg elements. In turn based combat, the character is the one aiming the attacks and not the player. The player just tells where the character should aim at and then the character tries it best to do it. In FPS you are the one aiming the weapon and not the character, and the character only hits because of the skill of the player and not the character's own skill.

As much as i like New Vegas, the game is worse by being a FPS because it does a worse job at conveying RPG elements, at least the ones for combat.

 

[NMLevesque]

none of the Fallout titles that followed Fallout 2 have appropriate gameplay

They added some neat features to it, but it was at most a half step in the direction of Fallout 2.

You're quite vague about this, leading me to wonder if you have a coherent point to make.

In turn based combat, the character is the one aiming the attacks and not the player. The player just tells where the character should aim at and then the character tries it best to do it. In FPS you are the one aiming the weapon and not the character, and the character only hits because of the skill of the player and not the character's own skill.

When people roleplay IRL, they carry out the character's actions. Ditto for LARPING. There's nothing about roleplaying that requires detachment from the character one plays. In fact roleplaying is specifically about the exact opposite of that, and ingraining it into the structure of a game doesn't change any of this.

In FPS Fallout games the characters skills and strength are part of what determines accuracy. This allows the player to actively and directly experience the limits and abilities of their character, rather than being a spectator to their character's nature. Roleplaying isn't an act of spectating. It's explicitly participatory.

Honestly, it's almost like you have to forget what you're talking about, the games and the concepts involved, in order to make this claim. That's about as gentle as I can put it. Either way, roleplaying games don't have to be like conventional tabletop rpgs. Which themselves are not the end all be all of roleplaying in game design, or the purest form, or the archetype against which all others must be judged. You really need to start thinking outside the box you're living in.




To no one in particular: before anyone trots out the usual 'but what about simulating randomness' bit, I have to ask, are you roleplaying as a subatomic particle? No? Then there isn't any randomness to simulate. For everything else there are dynamic systems...and they can be simulated with dynamic systems. Ta-da, no need for virtual dice rolls, no need at all.