Fallout 1 or Fallout New Vegas?

Discussion in 'General Fallout Discussion' started by TheHouseAlwaysWins, Jul 28, 2019.

  1. Ediros

    Ediros Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Feb 4, 2016
    I get what you are saying, but at the same time, Gizmojunk and Norzan both have got a point. Fallout New Vegas is an odd mix of classic RPG with skills, stats, etc but with FPS control scheme.

    It does neither one particurally well, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Fallout New Vegas is not good fps, that much is certain. However, it is good RPG. The problem comes when someone who doesn't play FPS games, but likes classic RPGs gives it a try.

    Personally, I think the easiest solution would be to have 2 different versions of the game. The only difference being either Fallout New Vegas camera or izometric view.

    Personally, I like New Vegas as it is and not the biggest fan of izometric RPGs anymore. I finished Fallout 1, but I would rather play it in similar fashion to New Vegas. While Gizmo and others may preffer playing New Vegas like Fallout 1.

    It all comes down to prefference.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 2
  2. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Nov 26, 2007
    The —point— has been so oft repeated for years now, that no longer interesting to repeat it in detail; and shouldn't need it IMO.

    However, I will make an exception.

    Now who is being vague. I disagree with that BTW. I'd say that roleplaying is impossible unless you are detached; so as to not cloud the reactions with your own.

    It's negligible, and the game is crap. Fallout is a superb RPG, FO3 is equivalent to a Fallout themed experience, in relatively the same way that the Luxor casino equates with a trip to ancient Egypt.

    In FO3 the player can compensate for the accuracy penalty—improving the PC's shooting accuracy beyond their defined skill. The player can shoot the BOS paladins, and then later return to ask admittance to the Citadel. The player can shoot the PC's dad in the face 50 times with the BB gun, and then ask for (and be given) more BBs to do it again. It's a garbage RPG.

    VATS was a map location in Fallout 1, V.A.T.S. in FO3 is a magical 'I win' button that lets the player unfairly slow time to a crawl whilst they shoot multiple times at their defenseless enemies, and they are given a 90% damage shield towards incoming attacks while they do it. VATS is broken, for this reason, and because it aims from the hip —literally, so even head shots can miss partially obscured targets if they are behind a waist high obstruction.

    *VATS is assumed to be a nod to turn based, but it's not. There is no turn, just a cheat against the AI, and the AI never gets pull this trick on the PC. In Fallout the combat is fair; in FO3 the NPCs usually have unlimited ammo, and they will soak damage at peak efficiency until the very last hitpoint, then fall dead.

    In FO3, the player can have the PC do unspeakable evil, then regain their good reputation by handing out bottles of radioactive water to vagrants. The game is incorrigible, and unsalvageable as a Fallout sequel, and a piss poor RPG in its own right. In FO:New Vegas, the PC can be lynched by an entire casino for picking up a cigarette butt off of the floor. In both games the skill system is bad, (due to thresholds, and skill merging; in NV's case also due to what are essentially skill potions).

    In Fo3 one cannot even attempt a thing until success is assured, and in NV you can make the attempt—but will either always fail, or always succeed.
    In other words, the PC is either inept or infallible. (But even then, you can always use a skill potion):wall:

    When you merge skills, you eliminate speciality. For instance, it is impossible to have two weapons experts who are not both each equally skilled in both weapons if the game has only one catch-all melee weapon skill. It is impossible in the later Fallout games to have an expert in first aid, who is not also a surgeon. In Fallout it's impossible to have have a character who is expert with a pistol—and who is not equally skilled with shotguns, sniper rifles, and light machine guns...but in NV it's also impossible for them to not be equally skilled with rocket launchers and flame throwers.

    How so?—by doing things for them? It's certainly not supposed to be. The player is not there in situ; for all intents they are non-existent within the game, except as an invisible observer. If the PC is illiterate, they should not be able to read text for them. The player should not be able to answer riddles for the PC; they should not be able to make leaps of logic and perception for them that the character is not capable of achieving themselves.

    The beauty of roleplaying games is that this [ideally] works both ways, and so the PC with exceptional intelligence and education should be able to answer questions, and perform tasks that the player is totally unfamiliar with... and they should not be hamstrung by the player's own shortcomings.

    In this way, roleplaying a Bruce Lee style character allows the player to influence the game world with a consummate martial artist when they themselves are not; one who knows better than they, how to handle themselves in a fight. In this way, roleplaying a Seinfeld or Carlin style character allows the player to influence the game world with a silver tongued comedian—which they are probably not. This PC knows how to handle a crowd, sway them, and entertain them. This is not something Rambo could do, despite all of his exceptional military training. He could not walk out on a stage and handle a crowd like George Carlin or Jerry Seinfeld. This is why the character skill is what matters, and why player skill should not even be considered for influence in RPGs.

    The box in this case is Fallout, and the problem we have is that the developers were thinking outside of the box; Bethesda was thinking within a different box entirely... when they released an Oblivion clone as a Fallout sequel.

    This is BoguS. Randomness facilitates impartiality, no one is perfect—except when they cannot fail unintentionally. That's what you get when you discard unpredictability.

    Fallout had a maximum of 95% success rate, but even an expert can fail, through their own fault, or no fault of their own; like a professional locksmith who fails to unlock the door to their own house on their first try—while using their own keys... what do you think the odds of that are? But it happens all the time; it's called dropping one's keys.

    A random system weighted by character skill & aptitude represents the character's overall expectation and confidence in their ability to influence the situation. It doesn't guarantee their outcome, but it ensures that the expert usually succeeds while the novice typically fails a lot on the path to getting better at it.

    Ideally it doesn't matter if the player 'rolls again', because time is the important factor. Anyone can pick a lock (or solve puzzles, disable a trap, or generally succeed at something) if they have as much time as they need, but the expert can reliably do it on demand, while under pressure; where as the novice will have a harder time of it, and might not be able to succeed quickly enough. That's all that's necessary for the skill system, and that's how Fallout worked.
    NV really annoyed me once when my character was out in the middle of nowhere, with no one for miles, and before him stood a little rundown shack with a locked door; and he had a minigun, but could not open the door

    In essence, the random roll represents the abstract difficulty of a task in the moment, and the character's skill at the task is their ability to succeed under [changing] adversity. This adversity can be anything at all—anything; blood pressure, sand in the pants, a previous burglar damaged the lock; a fly landed in their eye, or crawled up their nose; the ground is damp; the wind is cold. It's an abstraction of the situation, and their relative confidence and ability at the task—that may or may not be enough to succeed in the moment.


    Gameplay-wise: None of the followup Fallout games share its gameplay; they are all loosely based on TES, and FO4 loosest of all. These are entirely different games that share only the IP world setting, and some cherry picked names. Gameplay matters; it's paramount. If it were not so, then a Diablo sequel could be a collectible card game, and the next TES game could be a Torchlight clone.... but no, no, no—that's sacrilege, and yet it's just fine when it's the other guy's favorite game.

    When the gameplay is no longer built upon improving the foundation that preceded it, (and what generated the reputation), then it no longer deserves that reputation. If TES six played like Titan Quest in Tamriel, it would not matter how superb, nor how fantastic the lore and ancillary gameplay elements were... it would still be seen as completely wrong at its core experience, because it's not even trying to deliver on it.

    With Bethesda's FO games, they are not even trying to deliver on it.
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2020
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  3. scorptatious

    scorptatious Ugly Mutant

    Oct 8, 2012
    I will admit, New Vegas has quite a few issues from a pure gameplay standpoint. A lot of which are stuff from 3.

    That’s why I modded the game to bring it as close to the older games as possible. Multiple companions, bigger emphasis on specialization, ect.
  4. NMLevesque

    NMLevesque Commie Ghost

    Jul 2, 2016
    You, again. A specific notion was being discussed, and you generalized it into something so ambiguous that it has lost all context. I said it's not necessary to be detached from your character. If you aren't detached from your character, then you're in character. If you're in character then you're reacting as your character. Yikes.

    Whatever the player can make their character do is what the player character is capable of doing. That is tautological.

    Let's get to the real meat, shall we? No point in wasting time on things that NV fixed.

    Since when are there cigarette butts on the floor? Either way they are NPCs who will just come and take whatever you stole off your person. That's usually what happens, but casinos run by cannibals, sadists, and other belligerents tend to crack down on thievery...sigh.

    Having a known success rate means being inept or infallible because...you can't envision someone being able to consistently say something that they would think to say? Like I said, vague.

    If I know that lizards are reptiles I'm not going to randomly forget that. If I don't know it then I'm not going to randomly realize it. Every character goes from not being able to make skill checks, to being able to make them. The words change as a result. That's not infallibility. It's growth.

    If they know that they don't know anything good to say that just means they have self awareness. If they know when they have something good to say, then they know they have something good to say (also self awareness). Not every skill check automatically means a win. Sometimes it just influences later options; meaning not guaranteed to succeed, just guaranteed to say what they can think to say.

    They got rid of most of the dead weight and added two new ones. First aid was basically just a worse version of Doctor that has no skill checks. And NV focused on doing more with perks to distinguish skill levels between weapon sub-types falling under the same skill. You're clutching at straws here. Also, rocket launchers are explosives and flame throwers are energy weapons in New Vegas.

    Let me stop you right there, at an essential problem. Roleplaying is its own concept. It is not specific to videogames or games in general. You quoted me mentioning as much. At the very least we have to agree that roleplaying is roleplaying. We cannot work backwards from what is believed to be the roleplaying aspect of an experience. That would be circular. What applies to roleplaying applies to roleplaying in games. What applies to roleplaying in games does not necessarily apply to roleplaying. And besides...the only reason you can roleplay in a game is because it's interactive. If you're having an actual spectator experience, then you're watching a cutscene or a movie.

    Yes, everyone can fail. Including the player as they control their character, causing the player character to fail...the likelihood of which is determined by difficulty, which is itself determined by the abilities of the character. Though not everything that can be attempted in life is something at which a given individual would or could fail at. Nor is everything that a person attempts is something that they would unexpectedly fail it. Some people are cautious, or consistent, or methodical and so on. Without something to influence them, say "sand in the pants...a fly landed in their eye, or crawled up their nose; the ground is damp; the wind is cold", then there is no reason for that to change. Representing such things can be done dynamically, say with radiation sickness, drugs, withdrawal, crippled limbs...

    As you said, failure states are essentially just additional time. Which could just as easily be represented by a single interaction at a variable length. Or that time could be represented by the length of time it took to develop that skill. And if I apply your reasoning here, then it would detach the player from their character such that it's not in the player's hands how well the character will do. So a random chance to fail is less than ideal by that reasoning, and for other reasons by my own. Either way, there are skill in Fallout where additional time is taken: hacking and lockpicking which you kept using as your example oddly enough. The ease of doing so is dependent on character skill, after reaching the minimum requirement.

    As stated previously, randomness is not at play unless you're a subatomic particle. Aside from quantum weirdness we live in a causal universe. Whether we succeed or fail would not change if time somehow rolled back perfectly (in defiance of weak nuclear asymmetry) and then resumed its normal pace. We are not governed by randomness. Dynamic systems ought to be represented with dynamic systems.

    Your last bit more or less says 'It's not the way it used to be, and it didn't improve the gameplay'. The first is true, the second is subjective, but ultimately I don't see a particular line of reasoning here. Just 'things should be the way they were, otherwise they could be something else', with some examples of stuff people hated and none of the instances where it was happily received (Witcher). It can be done right or wrong. There's no absolutes to changing things.
  5. Bekuta

    Bekuta First time out of the vault

    Jan 23, 2018
    I'd probably go with Fallout 1 as it's what I consider the quintessential Fallout experience. I doubt Obsidian was given full creative control over Fallout: New Vegas because of how similar the style of the setting felt to the way Bethesda had been handling Fallout. I also wasn't a fan of how wild west everything felt. If Fallout:New Vegas was given a coat of paint much more similar to FO1 or FO2, I probably would have chosen it as my favorite Fallout game, but as it stands, I still have to go with Fallout 1.
  6. hexer

    hexer It's PJ! Modder

    Dec 7, 2013
    Fallout 1 of course, that's where it all started ...

    Sandbox gameplay, multiple solutions to quests, SPECIAL, retro futurism, excessive violence, the Vaults, Karma, talking heads, THE music, Brotherhood of Steel, super mutants, Power Armors, Ron Pearlman, "War. War never changes.", bittersweet ending, the deathclaw, Vault Boy, Pip Boy, the Ink Spots, endgame slides, etc.

    You have to know that back then there was nothing like this game, it was a complete package of perfection.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 2
  7. BlindBoy

    BlindBoy First time out of the vault

    Feb 12, 2020
    I didn't like New Vegas too much when it first came out. Wen't back a few years later and enjoyed it a lot more.

    It's got to be 1 though. Just something about it that always stuck with me.
  8. TheHobbler

    TheHobbler Woah there

    Feb 11, 2020
    This is a tough question. I'll start off by saying that I don't give Fallout 1 bonus points for being the first. This is, to me, akin to players saying Fallout 3 is their favorite Fallout because it was their first. When making this kind of judgement I'd argue that a certain degree of decontextualization is required.

    I have only played (and completed) Fallout 1 once. This is something I aim to correct, especially since I became much more used to the controls, system, and world while playing both 1 and 2. I was comfortable enough with all the 'fiddly bits' by 2 that I was able to really enjoy the game. That said, I really appreciate Fallout 1 for what it accomplished. Junktown is one of those locations that will always resonate with me, for instance. The idea of using water as a method of backing money is fantastic. It was obvious the world was lovingly crafted, with most everything making sense. Even when things don't make sense, they make sense. The question box was an incredibly cool touch, one I really don't see anywhere else. Games were certainly made differently then. Combat was also deadly for all involved, as it should be. That is, until you located Pre-War tech and could face roll anything, as it should be. Finally, the expansiveness of the world and overworld travel really makes it hit home that nuclear fire wiped out everything.

    Fallout: New Vegas is, without a singular doubt, the best of the first person Fallouts. This is not saying much, as the competition is 3, 4, and 76. It's pretty close a return to form for the series, at least as far as skills and the "rp" of "rpg" goes. However, I do agree with a number of Gizmojunk's points about merging skills and being able to miraculously boost skills for limited amounts of time. The gameplay, or more accurately 'gunplay,' is the unfortunate result of Fallout 3. That doesn't make it okay though, it's still a blemish on quite a good game. This is despite being head and shoulders over Fallout 3. The poor gameplay is certainly overshadowed by the world however. The focus on a small, more contained area was actually put to use by Obsidian. You could literally see how all these locations interacted, and everything felt interconnected. Not to say this wasn't true of the original Fallouts, but the visceral feeling of properly interacting as the Courier is cool.

    The writing in both games is really the tops.

    Perhaps my eventual replay of Fallout will change my mind, but for now Fallout: New Vegas has mine vote.
  9. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Nov 26, 2007
    No, not at all; it is the exact reverse. What ever the character is capable of doing should be the only options available to the player.

    That's the principle complaint, that the player is managing unachievable feats for the character; that's not in-character, that's cheating for the character.

    The casino in Prim; go ahead, pick one up. :twisted:
    Apologist :mrgreen:
    This a bug.

    Because they will either succeed, or always fail (or not even get to try); that's what thresholds mean. If you have sufficient skill, the action succeeds. If this were always true in life, there would be no mishaps in magic shows, and daredevils would always walk away alive. Situations affect outcome. Situations can make tasks harder or easier, and sometimes the expert overcomes the hardship; sometimes not.

    No they did not. They reduced specialization. They literally removed potential inadequacies of the player character; the core tenet of RPG gameplay is determining when to say, "No, the PC can't do that".

    First Aid and Doctor are different skills; one is a career. The player cannot improve the Doctor skill without dedicating skill points to it. The Doctor skill allows correction of crippling injuries, and enables certain dialog with some doctor NPCs. First Aid is simple bandaging, and is improvable by all, through the use of First Aid handbooks. Characters who are only adept in first aid, do not apply this skill to crippling injuries.

    Both skills take a different amount of time to use, and reward a different amount of XP. Each can be used up to three times per day. Because First Aid does not affect blindness or crippled limbs, this means that the player must triage their party members (if they have them).

    With both skills, the player has exactly six chances to restore general health, but only three chances to correct crippled limbs & blindness. If the PC is a complete novice in the Doctor skill, they will most likely waste their time trying them.

    While not realistic or strictly accurate, you could say that a PC with First Aid/90 & Doctor/20 skills is the equivalent of nurse. While the reverse is a medical specialist, and the PC with 50/50 in each is the general practitioner. You cannot say any of that with FO3's medical skill. And this is the problem with merged skills, because they represent singular mastery over several distinctly different areas of expertise.

    FO3 & NV... suddenly stimpaks heal concussions and broken bones, and not only that, but the drug's healing effect is magically increased by the Medical skill—and of course everyone is a doctor now.
    Eh... This skirts the divide between books and film; what works in a book won't always work in a movie. This can be said of computer roleplaying games, but it's a scope of AI issue. If the AI were sufficient, then the player could do anything they could in a PnP game, provided it was plausible for their character.

    Technically we could do away with exposed dice rolls, if the engine would depict failure and success (and critical variants) with their own animations. IE. the player could SEE their PC stumble on a rock while sneaking, and see the guards turn to look at the PC flopped on the ground with a twisted ankle, and looking embarrassed.

    But that's not going to happen anytime soon.

    No. At least not the way you might mean. Sure, in FPP the player directs the PC like an RC VR drone, while in iso-perspective, the player clicks where they want the PC to move, but PCs could be controlled by dialog choice, by skill checks (alone). In earlier games, the PC could be instructed by typing an action; often resulting in something impossible to do through the game's regular control scheme.

    A roleplaying game can be a series of questions asked of the player, and the outcome, simply narrated in text. Come to think of it, that was part of how Pillar's of Eternity sometimes worked; though I was thinking of pure plain text, and no visuals at all. IRRC, PoE asked a question, and it was success by stat check (perhaps with some element of RNG, I don't know).

    The elegance of the percentile is that none of it has to be shown. To represent everything that could go wrong would be nothing short of monumentally unprofitable; but the weighted percentile system does this at virtually no cost.

    This doesn't play well; players will simply be irritated by the PC taking forever to open a lock. Gameplay always trumps Realism.

    *In Pool of Radiance 2, the developer included shambling [very sloooow] undead... that was a nice touch IMO, but they got so many complaints about this that they made sure that the undead were Olympic sprinters after the next patch. (This is why we can't have nice things.)

    But in the case where the variable time is a simple advancement of the game clock—that could work. However few will even notice it. Did you notice that 'Fast Travel' in FO3 does actually advance the game clock? It takes three hours to walk from Vault 101 to Rivet City; so what? The game makes no practical use of the time passing. It's cosmetic for those rare few that would look; actually I suspect it's a hold over feature that they otherwise cut from the game.
    I never use this expression, because how can I know if I truly understand their reasoning; I have only my interpretation of it.

    This is supposedly my reasoning, and I don't understand what this means. My reasoning tells me that skill influence +random is the perfect choice to determine the outcome.

    This is from FO3; everything in FO3 is terrible from a roleplaying perspective—except the landscaping... and yet even that is objectionable, because the role is of someone living two hundred years after the Great War, and the landscape looks like it's three years hence.

    Vampire:Bloodlines did better with Lock Picking. The player opted, the PC attempted, the PC failed if they lacked the skill to overcome. And it resolved in a short, but indicative display of attempted lock picking.
    Missed it by that much! ~Don Adams ;)

    It is an impossible abstraction that does a superb job of faking what's not worth accurately simulating.
    *Kind of like the Shaman's in Warcraft, casting the 'Evil Eye' spell ostensibly to spy on the player through the fog of war, but of course the AI always knows everything about the map.

    It means more than that, it means that when you adapt a Lamborghini shell onto a Gremlin or a Pinto, it's not a Lamborghini, no mater how close it looks, it will not feel the same to drive it; now one could say the same thing (with less hyperbole) of putting the shell on a Ferrari instead, and I bet it would still ring true.

    When you say, "examples of stuff people hated", and not "happily received", you are talking about core aspects of the game. There will always be people who oppose core aspects of a game; just look at the many Fallout fans who state that they hate that it's turn based. But changing it to something utterly different—while keeping the name is like selling imitation Honey, labeled simply as Honey. It doesn't quite taste right, doesn't contain the same ingredients; it might have plenty in it that you don't want to consume. Witcher 2 & 3 were Fake Honey.
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2020
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  10. NMLevesque

    NMLevesque Commie Ghost

    Jul 2, 2016
    The player cannot make the character do anything that the character cannot do, logically. Characters have to be able to do the things that they are able to do. If there's a mismatch between the narrative of the game and the gameplay, say the cutscenes of Mass Effect vs its gameplay, then that's a shortcoming on the part of the developer. It's not something that stems from realtime control. The people who made the game just didn't have internally consistent writing.
  11. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Nov 26, 2007
    This is not the case in FO3. For example, when the player gets a gun, they can aim it anywhere they choose. If they aim it dead center on a target, then the PC's poor skill level degrades their aim, but the player can compensate for this by not aiming dead center on their target, in order to intentionally hit off-center targets. This has the novice PC making shots of which they should not be capable. In the vault with the BB gun, the PC can stand even as far back as the edge of the room, and still consistently hit the targets.

    This is not the case in Fallout 1 & 2; in those games it is the PC who aims, and pulls the trigger, and misses or hits the target all on their own. In those games, the player cannot compensate.


    This works in reverse as well. It's common in many RPGs that the PC can have sufficient skill, but the player becomes the handicap. This is the case in Witcher 2 (for instance), where Geralt can get beat up by villagers if the player is incompetent.

    In FO3, the PC with sufficient lockpicking skill can be stymied by a player who cannot manage the lock picking mini game, or the hacking game.
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2020
  12. TorontoReign

    TorontoReign Level 27 Wizard Staff Member Moderator

    Apr 1, 2005
    You can mod the game to be a little more isometric. I did for my Duke Nukem Lost in New Vegas LP. No way to get TB though.
  13. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Nov 26, 2007
    Ricardo aka Socrates 200x once conceded in PM that it may be possible. I had suggested that the AI be disabled for all, and the player be frozen; it can be done in script. Each entity would be enabled for their turn; animations would play (time is not stopped), but no one would act out of turn. He speculated that this might be doable, but of course that Bethesda would never do it officially, nor test it out.

    FO3 has support for a mouse cursor on screen, and I speculated that combat could be implemented as a kind of hybrid menu.
  14. TorontoReign

    TorontoReign Level 27 Wizard Staff Member Moderator

    Apr 1, 2005
    You could do all of that then the engine would crash a billion times since adding scripts to a broken engine just makes more headaches.
  15. Black Angel

    Black Angel Grand Inquisitor of the Ordo Hereticus

    Mar 21, 2016
    I don't know, can't really say I prefer the specific one over the other.

    To be clear, I still prefer Fallout 1 over New Vegas by virtue of having much better gameplay mechanics and presentation as a cRPG, so I kinda disagree with @Ediros that NV is a good RPG. I mean, yeah it's definitely an obviously better RPG than Fallout 3, and yet its RPGness can't even dream of reaching the height that Fallout 1&2 reached. But when it comes to the Fallout games that are cavalier oblique, I *definitely* preferred Fallout 1.5: Resurrection and Fallout: Nevada, by virtue of these TC mods utilizing Fallout 2's engine, gameplay mechanics, and presentation to its fullest potential. With both Fallout 1&2, the devs missed many opportunities and underutilized their own game to give players more agency when it comes to experiencing certain content, if not most or even all of the content.

    Meanwhile, for all its inherent flaws, New Vegas CAN be modded.... and so far it's easy to gather a list of 'essential' mods to greatly improve New Vegas's RPGness, and even if it could never surpass, let alone reach the height established by Fallout 1&2, at least modding New Vegas can also improve its FPS gameplay, if only to make it barely acceptable.
  16. plasticsoda

    plasticsoda custom title

    Mar 19, 2020
    New Vegas is much better than 1 in terms of writting and storytelling, everything is more nuanced and its just ''Evil Genius wants to conquer the world'' trope, that being said Fallout 1's ending is much more compelling to me. Descending more and more into the belly of the beast until you finally meet the Master is amazing and much better than the rail shooter that is the Battle of Hoover Dam.

    As far as gameplay goes both are pretty flawed, I'm not much into the turn based combat in 1 (the battle of Adytium is a nightmare) and NV gunplay is pretty lacking but both do their job; it's an even for me
  17. FDO

    FDO Still Mildly Glowing

    Jul 4, 2018
    The master isn't evil, and his goal isn't to conquer the world. He is not a 'James Bond movies vilain', nor is the story just a trope. It look that way from afar, that's all.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 2
  18. Black Angel

    Black Angel Grand Inquisitor of the Ordo Hereticus

    Mar 21, 2016
    I agree that New Vegas is much more nuanced and sophisticated when it comes to narrative design and storytelling, but nothing could ever top the bittersweet ending of Fallout 1.
  19. Atomic Postman

    Atomic Postman Mojave Express Employee of the Month

    Mar 16, 2013
    As much as I prefer New Vegas to Fallout 1, I find myself agreeing with GizmoJunk here about roleplay and gameplay. It particularly was outlined to me in running an actual Fallout PnP campaign how much (IMO, even Fallout 1) falls behind in terms of the roleplay and character experience. For instance, in my player party we had a character who was a Follower of the Apocalypse, and had no combat skills whatsoever. She excelled at Doctor, First Aid and Science and was able to act as a field medic really well, but she was completely incapable of fighting. Not only because of her lack of skills in that she literally could not aim and fire a gun with any reasonable chance of hitting the broadside of a barn, but she also had stats that made her physically frail and prone to death. The prospect of trying to talk down a group of armed men, and the fear that it could go sour and lead to a fight is infinitely more palpable in a scenario where your character's best chance of survival is to literally run and escape rather than stay and fight. That kind of character isn't doable in New Vegas simply because a player can aim with the mouse and compensate for the skill loss, and the FPS hybrid means that making physically frail characters would be pretty sucky and hard to compellingly convey.

    You could, I suppose, implement a system wherein low weapon skill institutes comical amounts of imprecision and sway, effecting the stats of your weapon immensely and making it literally hard to aim, but I can imagine now the tidal wave of complaints from gamers this would recieve.

    Similarly, I don't think that the Skill/% roll under system is somehow incompatible with the New Vegas style FPS hybrid, but as always you have to overcome the problem of why doesn't the player just save-scum?
  20. JKRDU(AKA Junyoung)

    JKRDU(AKA Junyoung) JUK

    Nov 21, 2018
    I think both games are great and have their charms. I love New Vegas and Fallout 1 because both have an amazing story, Gameplay, characters, art style, and various solutions to progress the story.

    I prefer Fallout 1's atmosphere because it actually feels like a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Gloomy, dark and violent. Not saying Fallout New Vegas portrayed a bad post-apocalyptic wasteland, just think Fallout 1 was more superior when it comes to the atmosphere.

    Perspective-wise, I prefer New Vegas's First-person approach because I'm not a huge fan of games with an isometric perspective.