Chromevod
Nope.
So much salt in the comments. Oh well. I thought it was pretty good. Even if the topics were things that have frankly been discussed in more than enough detail here. But still, even with no new information, it was alright.
Fallout 4 Bible: Bethesda will never make a good Fallout game
- Thread starter FedoricRhetoric
- Start date
joevonzombie
Buried alive in Golgotha
I thought New Vegas did a great job of proving this was possible. Yes there's dumb shit that carries over from three, but as a whole New Vegas succeeded.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
In my opinion New Vegas is, form a thematic and Role playing posibilities point of view, a true sequel. It actually has the most endings of any Fallout game.
5545Trey
Underground Deviant
It pretty much is the true sequel to Fallout 2, as the plot was solely based on Van Buren's.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Well can't say it was "solely based on Van Buren", they reworked a lot. I actually like the plot of New vegas more than the proposed plot of Van Buren, altho, there are many locationg from Van Buren I wish could've seen the light of day in maybe DLCs orsomething. Like the Reservation, Boulder Dome and the Sisters of Hecate.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
It's missing the primary mechanics of the Fallout series; it's a great spin-off ~FO3 is as well, but neither are great sequels IMO. But FO:New Vegas isn't claiming to be one. Surely Obsidian was on Bethesda's leash for everything they did, and it had to follow in the vein FO3... not like WL2/PoE for instance.
Last edited:
Sergeant Politeness
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Despite how bad Fallout 3's plot was, I think there is one thing that it managed to do better than the others. I haven't played it for some time so I don't completely remember the game, but the transition from finding your dad to save/change the date of the world felt somewhat less forced than in the others.
Or maybe I'm just saying shit and it was worse. I'm not sure.
Or maybe I'm just saying shit and it was worse. I'm not sure.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Well the change happens in a single quest and you are forced into it because you have to join the BOS yes or yes.
Last edited:
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
Am I mistaken, or can the player have walked up and shot the door guards in the face before politely asking to join the BOS?
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
He can, but they are Essential NPCs and the door is locked with a "requires key" label until the main quest opens it.
Sergeant Politeness
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
True, there was a lot of railroading. But what I mean is that the transition felt more natural.
In Fallout 1, you are sent to find a water chip, which is a fantastic pretext to explore the world without directions or railroading. Then, you return to the vault with it and the overseer basically says: That's great but the mutant will soon be a threat. Now, go destroy the entire army. Good luck.
In the second one, you're sent to find the GECK. When you find it and return to your tribe, you learn that they were captured by a bunch of people you had probably never heard of at that point and you were sent to destroy an entire army once again to save it.
In NV, the transition always felt a little bit forced to me. The transition from revenge to deciding the fate of the Mojave always felt a little bit strange to me.
As for F3, helping your father when you found him and the whole railroading into the BOS, although it was bad, somehow felt more natural. That is, until you are captured by someone who should be dead and transported to a secret base from which you escape by killing a whole army of guys in power armor on your own after having convinced a computer to kill himself with two lines of dialogue. Oh, and I almost forgot the big robot during the battle at the end. And the fact that you are criticized for not sacrificing yourself when your companion immune to radiation can simply solve the problem without any death involved.
Anyway, what I mean is that, despite it's horrible plot, the transition from finding your father to pursuing his goal felt more natural to me.
In Fallout 1, you are sent to find a water chip, which is a fantastic pretext to explore the world without directions or railroading. Then, you return to the vault with it and the overseer basically says: That's great but the mutant will soon be a threat. Now, go destroy the entire army. Good luck.
In the second one, you're sent to find the GECK. When you find it and return to your tribe, you learn that they were captured by a bunch of people you had probably never heard of at that point and you were sent to destroy an entire army once again to save it.
In NV, the transition always felt a little bit forced to me. The transition from revenge to deciding the fate of the Mojave always felt a little bit strange to me.
As for F3, helping your father when you found him and the whole railroading into the BOS, although it was bad, somehow felt more natural. That is, until you are captured by someone who should be dead and transported to a secret base from which you escape by killing a whole army of guys in power armor on your own after having convinced a computer to kill himself with two lines of dialogue. Oh, and I almost forgot the big robot during the battle at the end. And the fact that you are criticized for not sacrificing yourself when your companion immune to radiation can simply solve the problem without any death involved.
Anyway, what I mean is that, despite it's horrible plot, the transition from finding your father to pursuing his goal felt more natural to me.
5545Trey
Underground Deviant
I do not understand why you would think Fallout 3's plot felt more natural than NV's, as NV's transition allows to entirely skip the revenge section of it. Then again, that was also my initial reaction when I still thought Fallout 3 was a good game.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
I don't know, maybe the transition in FO1 is "forced" in a way, but by that point you had many encounters with the Mutants and the Children of the Cathedral so they don't come out of nowhere. In FO2, you also have a lot of opportunities to see the Enclave doing their stuff before even getting the GECK (You can even get to their base), in New Vegas you don't even need to focus on the revenge thing at all, you can even complete the entire NCR quest line without talking to Benny and you experience both big Factions on the way to Vegas.
In FO3 tho, the Enclave are virtually non existent outside of their radio station and you can't even talk to the BOS before the attack on Project Purity.
In FO3 tho, the Enclave are virtually non existent outside of their radio station and you can't even talk to the BOS before the attack on Project Purity.
joevonzombie
Buried alive in Golgotha
I understand where you're coming from, but it's the best Fallout game we're gonna get under the current circumstances a more valid sequel than FO3.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
The best Fallout game we are going to get under the current situation ~we already got; it's called Wasteland 2. [...and InXile knows it.]
T
TorontoReign
Guest
I wouldn't go that far. Wasteland 2 was good but it isn't the best we can get. InXile dropped the ball in the writing department which is where Fallout excelled. I won't go too far into that though.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
I want to play Wasteland 2 on the near future, but I have to beat Pillars first, I stopped playing until all patches came out but then I forgot to start playing again.
I could be wrong but I feel our friend Gizmo here sets the focus more on the gameplay and general structure of the game if you compare Wasteland 2 to New Vegas and Fallout 1/2. I am not sure but Wasteland 2 features a map for navigation no? With random encounters and the like? It at least is turn based and top down, and it already is doing something better than any of the new Fallout games, including Vegas, because they don't feature any of it.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
All I'm saying is Wasteland 2, while very similar to Fallout, isn't the ideal successor since the game was relatively average in comparison. Not only was it over hyped, featured sub-par/inconsistent writing, bad combat, and several other problems I won't get into, it is a different kind of game. Yes, it featured isometric turn-based with a fancy map. It just didn't do a lot of things as well as Fallout. It was also more squad based like Tactics. I suppose I'm sick of hearing about (other places as well as this one) how we should be content with Wasteland 2 when it was a letdown. I liked Wasteland 2 a hell of a lot for the record. It might be closer to Fallout than the actual Fallout games we are getting now, but I would rather pine away for some other RPG that fits the bill. Just because Fargo put together something resembling the old games doesn't mean it's good enough. It's a bit of a bummer honestly.
Sergeant Politeness
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Don't get me wrong, the plot in Fallout 3 was horrible. I just felt that the the events somewhat fitted more with each other.
In Fallout New Vegas, I found it strange that as soon as you are seen exiting the Lucky 38/Tops, all factions somehow want you to do all their work while you're just a nobody they have no reason to trust. In Fallout 1 and 2, you influenced the fate of post-war societies too but it was usually by a certain chain of circumstances, while I felt that in NV, the factions basically say to you : You're the main player, decide the fate of everyone.
This makes complete sense with the Yes Man and is okay with the the other factions questline too, but their overreliance on you seems a little forced.