Fallout 1 or Fallout New Vegas?

[Nyaren-Chan]

Difficult question, but obviously New Vegas is NOT better than 1. The very first game set the basis for the entire Fallout Universe, without it, there would be no New Vegas, as mentioned before. It definitely earns and deserve to be called " Fallout ", and it is a great sequel to Fallout 2.
Is it overrated ? Maybe. But i have seen a lot of hate coming from Fallout 3 fanboys, despising it, considering it as some sort of " spin-off " and a " Fallout 3.1 ".

I say let's instead consider it as the model for what a modern Fallout should be, no game will clearly ever be able to be as good as the first two, because they have their own status, they are the original games and made everything else possible.

 

[Sentinel]

Definitely Fallout 1 because of its originality and varied character builds. Significance of stats was downplayed in NV (not as much as in F3, but still) so there are fewer incentives to replay the game.

I also did not like the forced linear path in the beginning of NV - as a new character you do not stand a chance against Khazadors and cannot go directly north. In F1 you have much more freedom - as long as you do not wander to Military Base early on you can try your luck exploring the map.

Moreover, I did not like the Legion faction - it felt very forced. I know it was supposed to be included in original F3, but it still felt like something out of a cheesy random encounter.

 

[KingArthur]

Moreover, I did not like the Legion faction - it felt very forced. I know it was supposed to be included in original F3, but it still felt like something out of a cheesy random encounter.

Degenerates like you...
no but actually I don’t even know you and you fucking disgust me. Fuck you.

Kidding. Or am I?

 

[Norzan]

I also did not like the forced linear path in the beginning of NV - as a new character you do not stand a chance against Khazadors and cannot go directly north.

This is objectively false because i have done it. This myth that you only have one path at the beginning of New Vegas is objectively, factually wrong. And this was on the hardest difficulty.

In fact, going north can net you gear that you only get later if you went east first.

 

[Sentinel]

This is objectively false because i have done it. This myth that you only have one path at the beginning of New Vegas is objectively, factually wrong. And this was on the hardest difficulty.

In fact, going north can net you gear that you only get later if you went east first.

Experienced players might be able to do that, but not beginners. New players will be discouraged by "Keep Out" signs. F1 does not tell you "do not go there" in the beginning.

 

[Lexx]

Fo1 kills you just as easily if you start the game and wander west instead of east.

 

[Norzan]

Experienced players might be able to do that, but not beginners. New players will be discouraged by "Keep Out" signs. F1 does not tell you "do not go there" in the beginning.

That's not what you meant, you meant that is literally impossible for new characters to go north. Which is false. It's no different than Fallout 1 where you can "try your luck" in the harder areas.

In Fallout 1 you will also get wrecked if you start to go to areas that the devs clearly don't intend the player to go at the beginning of the game, and it's just not the military base. The devs also clearly want the player to go to Shady Sands first, it's no different than the devs in New Vegas wanting the player to go Southeast to Nipton and then East to New Vegas.

 

[Ediros]

Plus, The game provides means to skip south part of The map. Joe Cobb Has got stealth boy and Black Mountain is easy. Just wait for muties to walk up a slope.

Ps: did you know vents in Sierra Madre and OWB possess loot?

 

[Hulk'O'Saurus]

Fallout 1 and New Vegas are without a doubt the best games in the whole thing... can't decide.

I will take both.

EDIT: Bloody hell, I've already posted in this thread... what's wrong with me.

 

[SquidWard]

Fo1 kills you just as easily if you start the game and wander west instead of east.

Yep. Fallout 1 was intentionally made for you to go on a certain path up to a point. If you just skip Junktown and Shady Sands, you're going to be under leveled without either grinding out random encounters or decent knowledge of the game.

Experienced players might be able to do that, but not beginners. New players will be discouraged by "Keep Out" signs. F1 does not tell you "do not go there" in the beginning.

The best keep out sign is areas that will whip your ass over and over again because you wandered off in the wrong direction or decided the early content wasn't important. New Vegas was also made for a period of gaming when people needed a bit of direct guidance. Why else would most modern big budget titles have quest markers and whatnot? Older games didn't always have them. It wasn't a lack of technology to mark where you need to go next but a design decision.

 

[Sentinel]

Yep. Fallout 1 was intentionally made for you to go on a certain path up to a point. If you just skip Junktown and Shady Sands, you're going to be under leveled without either grinding out random encounters or decent knowledge of the game.

The best keep out sign is areas that will whip your ass over and over again because you wandered off in the wrong direction or decided the early content wasn't important. New Vegas was also made for a period of gaming when people needed a bit of direct guidance. Why else would most modern big budget titles have quest markers and whatnot? Older games didn't always have them. It wasn't a lack of technology to mark where you need to go next but a design decision.

You are right, Fallout 1 is also designed to lead the player along a predefined path. I still have a problem with the starting area of NV, though. It is not plausible to have high level monsters located in a walking distance from a small town - why would people want to live next to monsters? Why wouldn't Cazadors attack the city? Most if not all first time players will notice "Keep Out" signs because they are located so close to the town and the cemetery that players normally visit to complete to Broc flower quest or examine their own grave. Most players will therefore notice this very artificial way of discouraging them from going north. There are better ways of warning players of danger, designers can place dead bodies (e.g. skeletons in Deathclaw cave in F1), bullet marks, spent ammo clips or abandoned weapons.

In F1 Military Base is located far from V13 and Shady Sands, it takes days of in game time to get there, which implies considerable distance. You cannot run into "keep out" signs and high level monsters by simply walking 100 meters from Shady Sands borders. This makes the world believable in spite of vastly inferior technology.

 

[Sentinel]

This is objectively false because i have done it. This myth that you only have one path at the beginning of New Vegas is objectively, factually wrong. And this was on the hardest difficulty.

In fact, going north can net you gear that you only get later if you went east first.

Person A: Fallout 2 offers hours of gameplay.
Person B: This is objectively false because I have seen speedruns made under 10 minutes on YouTube.

 

[SquidWard]

Most players will therefore notice this very artificial way of discouraging them from going north

How is this artificial? It's literally an area in the game that doesn't restrict but discourages you. It's literally a threat up north. The only majorly troublesome things after Goodsprings is the Deathclaws if you're going right into Vegas and not detouring straight north or northwest. And it's not like the people said ooo a buncha deathclaws let's start mining here.

There are better ways of warning players of danger, designers can place dead bodies (e.g. skeletons in Deathclaw cave in F1), bullet marks, spent ammo clips or abandoned weapons.

That legitimately won't stop players as much as causing them to die multiple times will. Imagine someone playing Fallout 3 going into New Vegas and seeing broken guns and dead bodies in an area. They aren't going to think, "oh boy better turn around." They're going to think, "OH BOY WHAT LOOT IS AHEAD." Context still matters. Fallout 3's financial success and its fanbase was considered when making New Vegas despite people who liked the old Fallouts liking New Vegas too.

There's a reason why many post-Fallout 3 fans find Fallout 1 and 2 difficult.

 

[Sentinel]

How is this artificial? It's literally an area in the game that doesn't restrict but discourages you. It's literally a threat up north. The only majorly troublesome things after Goodsprings is the Deathclaws if you're going right into Vegas and not detouring straight north or northwest. And it's not like the people said ooo a buncha deathclaws let's start mining here.

"Keep out" is simply a lazy way of instilling a sense of danger. 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.

That legitimately won't stop players as much as causing them to die multiple times will. Imagine someone playing Fallout 3 going into New Vegas and seeing broken guns and dead bodies in an area. They aren't going to think, "oh boy better turn around." They're going to think, "OH BOY WHAT LOOT IS AHEAD." Context still matters. Fallout 3's financial success and its fanbase was considered when making New Vegas despite people who liked the old Fallouts liking New Vegas too.

There's a reason why many post-Fallout 3 fans find Fallout 1 and 2 difficult.

I am not saying that dead bodies/skeletons should replace Cazadors. I am saying they should replace warning signs leading the Cazador infested area.

I am not denying that F3 was designed for casuals.

 

[Norzan]

Person A: Fallout 2 offers hours of gameplay.
Person B: This is objectively false because I have seen speedruns made under 10 minutes on YouTube.

That's such a laughable argument that i'm not gonna even bother explaining why it's so atrocious. Just seems to me you don't like being proven wrong, specially because you responded to that post of mine again to make that terrible "argument".

But your original argument that going north is impossible for new characters in New Vegas is still objectively, factually, scientifically wrong.

How is this artificial? It's literally an area in the game that doesn't restrict but discourages you. It's literally a threat up north. The only majorly troublesome things after Goodsprings is the Deathclaws if you're going right into Vegas and not detouring straight north or northwest. And it's not like the people said ooo a buncha deathclaws let's start mining here.

It's not even an out of game "warning sign", it's an IN-UNIVERSE warning sign. Several characters tell you to go not go north because of Cazadores and other dangerous beasts. You can't get more natural than this.

Stick to the roads when you can, and steer clear of the hills north of Goodsprings. The critters up there are big and poisonous.

A quote from Sunny Smiles, the person that handles the tutorial.

 

[Sentinel]

That's such a laughable argument that i'm not gonna even bother explaining why it's so atrocious.

you don't like being proven wrong

QFT

 

[Norzan]

Yes, those two quotes are correct: the argument you made was laughably terrible and that you don't like being proven wrong.

I have proven why you can go to the North in New Vegas and i have proven that characters ingame give advice for you to not go North and i posted a quote that has that from the character that gives you the tutorial.

The sooner you just accept that you are wrong, the sooner we can move on. Because learning that you are wrong is not a bad thing, it's means you are improving and learning more. It's just this back and forth will eventually become tiring the longer it continues.

 

[Lexx]

I am not saying that dead bodies/skeletons should replace Cazadors. I am saying they should replace warning signs leading the Cazador infested area.

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.

It is not plausible to have high level monsters located in a walking distance from a small town - why would people want to live next to monsters?

What. The town existed first - the monsters came later. This is like "well, there is a bear outside the woods of this village now - why aren't all villagers abandoning their homes, going somewhere else and abandoning all of their live-hood because of the danger?" ... this is really not how we humans work.

 

[Gizmojunk]

https://www.independent.co.uk/trave...ll-manitoba-hudson-bay-wildlife-a8791726.html

 

[Sentinel]

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.

99% percent of players that see "Keep out" sign will save the game and proceed to see what danger lies ahead and then simply reload.

What. The town existed first - the monsters came later. This is like "well, there is a bear outside the woods of this village now - why aren't all villagers abandoning their homes, going somewhere else and abandoning all of their live-hood because of the danger?" ... this is really not how we humans work.

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