Black Angel
Grand Inquisitor of the Ordo Hereticus
Because Bethesda literally took it from Van Buren, so nice try, chunglord.
Fallout 1 or Fallout New Vegas?
- Thread starter TheHouseAlwaysWins
- Start date
What are you talking about?
The only similarities are that the player has to secure missile silos to close fissures from which Scorch beasts emerge that spread the scorched plague and eventually these fissures open somewhere else to start the gameplay plot device all over again.
At no point is the player trying to find a cure for the scorched plague.
Van Buren's plot was not just about stopping the New Plague and Presper from using BOMB001's missiles but also finding out what made him go to these extreme measures.
The player would find out that civilization was failing or dying in the wasteland because of various reasons.
The greed of the caravan houses, the rise of the Legion, the corruption of the NCR, the NCR-BOS war and the conflict with the Legion in the past, the BOS seeking to regain power by reclaiming all advanced technology from unworthy outsiders, the powder gangers the NCR had helped to create in its Black Canyon prison.
Part of the game was actually helping the factions and settlements to prove that Presper was wrong with his extremist philosophy that civilization needed to be reset with another nuclear holocaust.
The player could resolve the problems of NCR settlement at Hoover Dam such as ending the war between the NCR and the BOS and helping the settlement become the center of a new government/republic if Shady Sands in the West had indeed fallen.
The player could help Jericho become a financial powerhouse and a source of fresh water that would help other development in the region.
The player could fix the problems at the Nursery, helping it become once again the future of restoring nature to the wastelands.
The player could end the hostility of the Ghouls who live at the Reservation against normal human outsiders and create a future in which both could live together in peace with the Reservation trading its nuclear technology and knowledge.
The player could help the prisoners at Denver to work off their remaining sentences, redeem them, and turn Denver into Fort Denver, a destination for future prospectors and colonization.
And so much more.
This was all part of resolving the problems the region and civilization was experiencing. Just stopping the New Plague and the impending missile strike was just a part of it.
Atomic Postman
Vault Archives Overseer
Firstly I think Presper is a very underbaked villain. As was in the design documents, he was basically a shitter version of the Enclave. Now granted, we see in New Vegas that Elijah is basically a fully fleshed out/developed Presper with his "Wipe the slate clean on the Wasteland with pre-war technology" plan, though he's ex-BOS instead of ex-NCR. So given time it's possible that Van Buren Presper could have become something like Elijah as well, who actually was compelling as a villain. I will admit that the counter-party is a great idea, as evidenced by the many, many DnD campaigns across the world that use it.
I never liked the whole players and other prisoners being infected storyline, either. If handled poorly it would be a 10x worse iteration of Fallout 1's water chip/mutant invasion clock that would actively punish the player for not rushing through the game and minimizing contact with NPCs/the world. If the player is cured but the other prisoners are not, and you have to do an easter egg hunt in every town tracking down the prisoners, isn't everbody already fucked anyway? Especially considering the map distance Van Buren took place on, it'd take weeks if not months to travel around the map, and by then you'd expect everyone would have been plagued and died, no? Not to mention I think this main quest structure is lazy and boring. Go to town, pickup prisoner who doesn't want to come with you. Repeat.
Thirdly, the space-station thing was absurd. Come on. If this was a Bethesda game that had the protagonist launching a functional space rocket and going to a functional orbital space station 200 years after the Great War, there'd be about twenty threads complaining about it jumping the shark and how it doesn't fit Fallout. And they'd be right. Doesn't help that as was, Presper was just generic evil scientist.
Van Buren had really strong world building and side content, and it's a shame the game never got made but let's not pretend the half-baked mainquestline wasn't the worst part of it by a long shot.
People were complaining about that but I have always given Fallout a little leeway here and there. Occasionally "because it is cool" is allowed if it fits the context and doesn't break or twist it too far.
For the same reasons why would the missile silos in the Divide still be up and running? They weren't maintained for a very long time. (sure we saw those little eyebots that were fixing up missiles, but there were also robots on BOMB001 that were probably continuing maintenance and perform course corrections to maintain orbit)
The HERMES rocket actually had to be fixed up before it could be launched. Other than launch codes the player would also had to secure other stuff for it to make it space worthy again.
Most of the complaints were rather obsessive in my opinion (and I can be obsessive) because people did not like the idea that the Fallout universe had space travel, apparently having the idea because the transistor was never invented rockets and satellites weren't either.
I confess that that is an issue (collect the prisoners) but part of the game was also to have a cure developed. I think it is included in the bad endings that if the player doesn't have DIANA/Dome ZAX work on a cure that the New Plague would eventually destroy human society in the region.
But like with the Rocket and the space station this is matter of taste rather than that an explanation can not be provided that doesn't break the setting.
I don't deny that Presper isn't that well developed an antagonist that rather sounded like another guy with the Enclave's agenda. Perhaps that is why he was made into an NCR scientist instead who wanted just reset civilization and not so much "use the virus and missiles to wipe out all mutant scum that are threatening pure humanity from reclaiming the position as the dominant species in the US"
I do think an ending would have to be included in which the player shows Presper evidence of how he/she fixed NCR and the region's problems, making Presper realize the errors of what he has done and how he only helped to make things worse. So much for being a genius with a master plan to save human civilization.
BiggumsBoi
ADOLESCENT BRAINDEAD TROLL
lol nice try what? I didn't know it was derived from that.
BiggumsBoi
ADOLESCENT BRAINDEAD TROLL
I never said that was all van burens plot was, just that 76's sounds like the plague plotline lol I have been turned off from that game myself because the legion where handled terribly in NV, but I really don't care about the plotline of a dead game thats not getting released
You can reply to multiple people in one post. And Chunglord was a recent user that seemingly showed up to troll and then dipped out before his thread even hit page 2.
Okay I misunderstood you here and there.
Yeah Fallout 76 does do the plague storyline and I can not say I find this version very interesting. I would rather take a normal highly infectious disease threat that is lethal plot than the "spores of the hive mind" plot that could just as well come from a Resident Evil game.
I know it is silly but I still wish that Van Buren as it was intended would be made one day, if just to give a book end ending to the first two games (a fourth one that would involve that version's Legion in Texas would still be welcome of course)
I love Fallout New Vegas but it doesn't beat what Van Buren could have been, especially when the finally plotholes had been properly fixed.
BiggumsBoi
ADOLESCENT BRAINDEAD TROLL
I feel ya man, I love the idea of hive minds (system shock 2 made me love it) but 76 treats them like feral ghouls with guns and wasted the potential. their whole concept is so underwhelming
Nothing wrong with wishing van buren was made lol, I liked the idea of the hanged man npc being op, yet causing lots of issues for the player. I just personally don't like dwelling on less fallouts being made, it kinda bums me out
tgawt
ye ass
Replaying Fallout 2 now, make me want to break the question and answer 2 instead
But since this is between 1 and vegas, 1.
1 has quite bland characterization outside of talking heads and despite the attempts, story isn't that focused nor well structured but it has lots of background details within the solid construction of the setting and the ending is a huge gutpunch and the main reason why people argue about tonal consistency within the game (even if the tone wasn't really all that grim before the finale), and i certainly like its quest design more than vegas's quest markers + bunch of exposition + skill check insta win scenarios (which wouldn't feel like insta wins if there was no markers nor highlights for skill usage in dialogue)
The gameplay and engine of Fo1 is certainly better either, no sprint button in a game about exploration is frankly unforgivable
Ans while vegas have lots and lots of cool ideas, the main game's main plot is rather dull imo, it falls to two writing traps i absolutely hate
1. The whole premise is based on a narrative implication that is disconnected from gameplay mechanics: Getting shot in the head isn't lethal. It happens all the time and you certainly take way more than just two bullets from a low caliber pistol to your brains during gameplay. Its actuallt quite painful how common the one thing that started it all keep happening over and over again.
It's like if i started Fo3 by stablishing that the BoS got murdered by a new faction who came in and murdered everybody with grenades (even if grenades are shit against PA) or the Salvatores in Fo2, which are said to own Reno's power structure when it comes to firepower even if they have only the most pathetic weapons against even the shittiest armor type. Difference is that this is in the game's main premise.
2. it tries way too hard to make your character a blank slate for the sake of roleplaying: Your character doesn't exist in this world. You have no friends, no parents, no siblings, nothing. Nobody knows you, you have absolutely no role besides your job and its painfully obvious that you are nothing but an avatar for the player to move and take inputs as. LR tried to fixed that, but it was too late.
Then we have the lack of a strong antagonistic figure in the main game, the legion made no sense and its made worse when you notice Caesar's hegelian dialetics have absolutely nothing to do with Hegelian dialetics. mix with the fact that the game has mostly forgettable characters and the fact most faction quests are very similar and well... I was never a big fan.
Dead money was worthy of my time tho.
But Vegas was a letdown. I need to replay to get some of my perspectives better, but there's a lot j recall bothering me about Vegas. Specially the gameplay.
But since this is between 1 and vegas, 1.
1 has quite bland characterization outside of talking heads and despite the attempts, story isn't that focused nor well structured but it has lots of background details within the solid construction of the setting and the ending is a huge gutpunch and the main reason why people argue about tonal consistency within the game (even if the tone wasn't really all that grim before the finale), and i certainly like its quest design more than vegas's quest markers + bunch of exposition + skill check insta win scenarios (which wouldn't feel like insta wins if there was no markers nor highlights for skill usage in dialogue)
The gameplay and engine of Fo1 is certainly better either, no sprint button in a game about exploration is frankly unforgivable
Ans while vegas have lots and lots of cool ideas, the main game's main plot is rather dull imo, it falls to two writing traps i absolutely hate
1. The whole premise is based on a narrative implication that is disconnected from gameplay mechanics: Getting shot in the head isn't lethal. It happens all the time and you certainly take way more than just two bullets from a low caliber pistol to your brains during gameplay. Its actuallt quite painful how common the one thing that started it all keep happening over and over again.
It's like if i started Fo3 by stablishing that the BoS got murdered by a new faction who came in and murdered everybody with grenades (even if grenades are shit against PA) or the Salvatores in Fo2, which are said to own Reno's power structure when it comes to firepower even if they have only the most pathetic weapons against even the shittiest armor type. Difference is that this is in the game's main premise.
2. it tries way too hard to make your character a blank slate for the sake of roleplaying: Your character doesn't exist in this world. You have no friends, no parents, no siblings, nothing. Nobody knows you, you have absolutely no role besides your job and its painfully obvious that you are nothing but an avatar for the player to move and take inputs as. LR tried to fixed that, but it was too late.
Then we have the lack of a strong antagonistic figure in the main game, the legion made no sense and its made worse when you notice Caesar's hegelian dialetics have absolutely nothing to do with Hegelian dialetics. mix with the fact that the game has mostly forgettable characters and the fact most faction quests are very similar and well... I was never a big fan.
Dead money was worthy of my time tho.
But Vegas was a letdown. I need to replay to get some of my perspectives better, but there's a lot j recall bothering me about Vegas. Specially the gameplay.
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
That's the point, it's supposed to be a blank slate. You are supposed to come up with a backstory for the character and respond to quests based on that character's backstory and personality, that's called roleplaying. It should try its hardest to make the character a blank slate because many people don't want unwanted backstory to their character.
And Lonesome Road didn't fixed it, it made it much worse. But at least the devs had the foresight to have the option of denying that the Courier blew up the Divide, so there are Couriers that didn't actually do it. And if they didn't it, how the hell is tacking on unnecessary backstory to the player character "fixing" anything when it's a roleplaying game?
That's because the game doesn't have a dedicated antagonistic main force to go against regardless of choices, it's up to the player which one they want to go against.
And how are the NCR, Mr. House and Legion weak as antagonists?
How does the Legion make no sense? They made perfect sense to me. Uniting everyone under one banner through brute force because the way the wasteland has been operating has clearly not been working. Is it extreme and in the real world they would be considered terrorists? Yeah, but the wasteland in Fallout is not the real world, it has a complete different context to our world.
First, it's not a fact that it has mostly forgettable characters because i remember most of them. Second, i find most of them to be far better written than the ones in Fallout 2. the game you seemingly think it's better. New Vegas has overall far more consistent writing quality in their characters compared to 2 because Fallout 2 is inconsistent in its quality because of its rushed development.
Edit: Also, how is 2 better than 1? 1 is the better written, far more consistent in quality of the two. Improvements to gameplay and UI hardly make up for the inconsistent tone and writing quality in 2.
Last edited:
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
For myself, I have never had a problem with pre-fab characters, so long as there is a reasonably defined personality, and a backstory to play; that's how one can know the character's probable behavior. The difference between Snake Plissken, Marty Mcfly, and Irwin Fletcher is all in the character stats, skills, and personal history. I needn't write my own if someone has already done a good job of it.
Hence I was just fine with the Witcher [1], Planescape, and using a pre-made character in the Fallout, and Baldur's Gate series; and Gothic 2.
Geralt and Nameless both start with prior acquaintances in the gameworld; it shows they grew up, and didn't just fall out of a hole in the night sky.
*That's not to imply that a blank slate PC isn't a good or welcome feature. Crafting a custom PC is superb if the game can support it.
Hence I was just fine with the Witcher [1], Planescape, and using a pre-made character in the Fallout, and Baldur's Gate series; and Gothic 2.
Geralt and Nameless both start with prior acquaintances in the gameworld; it shows they grew up, and didn't just fall out of a hole in the night sky.
*That's not to imply that a blank slate PC isn't a good or welcome feature. Crafting a custom PC is superb if the game can support it.
Last edited:
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Those are movie characters. We are talking about roleplaying in a videogame, not watching someone play a character in a movie screen.
It's fine if you don't like that sort of thing, but it's very common in games/video games to see this. Characters die in a world where there's a game mechanic that respawns people and it's even explained in the game how it came to work like this. But that important character must die! Enemies must die! It's a concession of a game and it's better off for it in my opinion.
RPGs in general by this standard cannot use bodily harm in a meaningful way in stories if they have to also abide by their game's own mechanical workings regarding it. Well, they could do that I guess and make it so that you have to dodge or block most attacks or die outright though I sincerely doubt that would be a strongly favored design. Or they could make the stories sound silly as shit by saying you were targeted in the head 15 times and the enemy hit you 13 of them so it seemed to kill you and now you're assumed dead and buried in a grave.
Damage/health doesn't correlate to the actual scale of real life. Fast travel ensures safe travelling across any distance. You probably never need to eat, sleep, or drink. Alcohol always makes you more charming, other substances have various pros/cons to their short term use. Addiction is cured by waiting a day or two or with a use of an item or talking to a doctor who charges you the same price of a broken pistol. You have a really big backpack and have the endurance of a mule even after getting your teeth knocked out to carry all your shit with you. It's not suspicious to stealthy traverse everywhere unless you actually start to steal things. Lockpicking any modern locks with common items (modern locks still often suck and are easy to lockpick but not with what someone in a wasteland or warzone is likely to find laying around). Eating food, drinking beverages, or a one night's sleep heals 99% of your wounds. Currency rarely ever takes up weight and almost never takes up actual space to carry with you besides maybe weight if you're really aiming for that "realism." You get a temporary exhaustion if you sprint but never get exhausted if you walk thousands of miles. Armor can protect you in areas it visibly and clearly does not actually cover your body.
At some point you concede that the story exists in a more "realistic" sense. A bullet hitting your unprotected skull is going to kill or nearly kill you in real life and it's fine that it does the same in the opening scene of New Vegas even if you can take a few to the head in the game before being near that state.
I don't get a lot of your other criticisms either but to each their own. Norzan, like normal, already hit the other important bits.
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
If anything, the fact that the Courier doesn't die from an headshot is actually in line with how the game behaves.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
There is no practical difference—it's a character personality. Each would approach the same situation in their own way; same with Indiana Jones, same with Gandalf the Grey. One can play each of them in distinct character.... and each played as the other would be out of character.
That's the actors roleplaying the script; sometimes doing superb improv in-character, but off script. Game players may do the same given the game's provided encounters and situations.
Last edited:
The only thing I want to add is that FNV without Wild Wasteland is the best humor/story balancing in the entire series imo. FO2 has the story but jesus the dated references are obnoxious. FO3 has the humor but a porno-tier story. New Vegas strikes that middle ground of serious characters, serious stakes, and nose-exhalingly levels of funny shit on the side.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
IMO Wild Wasteland [perk?] should not have been optional; it should have been baked into the world setting, and never pointed out to the player.
if you like that style of jokes more power to you, I'm just very happy the game doesn't have Monty Python characters by default