@ Hardcore Fallout 1&2 Fan

Humpsalot2 said:
Im still annoyed at the current story types in FO3 and NV, in FO1 and 2 you had to leave your home to save your village/vault/friends/elders/ect... by any means possible, this did a few things for me

1) Made me feel like the city hero
2) I was out there for the city not just myself
3) I would rationalize killing a shop owner to get my first sub machine gun (or doing something else "evil") bc i had to do it to save my village... now in FO3 and NV, you do something mean you are just an asshole out for yourself.

FO3 story was "i miss my daddy"
FONV story starts "Revenge/ why did someone shoot me?"

both 3 and NV are narcissist story lines, that dont make me feel like the "Hero" just some guy doing what he wants to find the info he wants, which leaves the choices to be "The Punisher" or super timid "Ill help you, so i can be strong someday" or something in between, but never "My friends rely on me" hero type like what was in FO 1 and 2.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the whole "chosen one" scheme which united F1 and F2 is gone forever...
 
I like the NV plot. Sure, it's personal and "narcissistic", but hey that was an interesting way to throw the player into the world. A very plausible one too. The nicest thing about it is that it take away that "you're special" feel that was prominent in FO3. You're really just a part of the world and none of it revolves around you.
 
Ausdoerrt said:
I like the NV plot. Sure, it's personal and "narcissistic", but hey that was an interesting way to throw the player into the world. A very plausible one too. The nicest thing about it is that it take away that "you're special" feel that was prominent in FO3. You're really just a part of the world and none of it revolves around you.
Click to expand...

Although I do agree that it takes away some of that "you're special" feeling, I was feeling as if the world revolved around me when I [spoiler:2ec3c53d8f]talked to Mr. House, and then was summoned to the leader of NCR and the leader of Caesar's Legion.[/spoiler:2ec3c53d8f]
 
TwinkieGorilla said:
In this sense it is much more tuned to table-top RPG gaming.
Click to expand...

Per this, I was curious if Fallout NV forces certain skills down your throat like Fallout 3 (a game which almost seems to demand you have repair and a high level combat skill, etc). Is NV more free form in the builds you can make work or still kind of regressive in this respect?

From another forum:

Gustavo said:
I saw your post on NMA about roleplaying, afraid you are going to be disappointed with FONV. I am at level 10 and this appears to be the same as FO3 for rp....You will need a weapon skill, repair, lockpick/science, and speech it seems. No playing a brilliant, smooth talker who never has to fire a shot, not going to happen. If you try this you will spend your time running from everything, and you can't outrun a deathclaw I found out. Speech and science seem to be the most valuable skills I have come across, too bad I didn't pick either.
Click to expand...

Agree?
 
sea said:
Yeah, you still need to have at least one decent combat skill,unless you rely on stealth. The main story doesn't seem to require you to kill anyone, but you'd have to work pretty hard to sneak past everybody. That said, if you don't mind running from enemies, you can get through most situations in the game without too much bloodshed. There's definitely side-quests which require fighting, though, like taking out Legion outposts for the NCR, rescuing hostages, that sort of thing, but as far as I can tell it's not needed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.

You know, when I take off my rose tinted glasses, I guess it was pretty difficult to play a pacifist in Fallout 1 and 2 as well (especially 2 where you were definitely forced into battle on more than one occasion).
 
The go out into the world and save us made me feel like a badass with carte blanche. I guess to be clear i should let you know that i feel like an asshole if i play FO3/nv as a screw everyone over bc there is no reason, or urgency to the situation. But in Fo1/2 there is that urgency and if that meant you had to get the job done by any means, and with that urgency/people depending on you i felt more free to take immoral shortcuts.
 
Humpsalot2 said:
it could be im just sick of the JRPG standard "ive lost my memory". Think that is a lazy way to start a game. Sometimes it ends up cool like in KOTOR 2, you playing the bad guy seemed to be the plan at the start for that story, instead of hmmmm lets say we have a character that lost his memory and go from there lazy bs.

Ya the being chased by robots does sound cool for VB. gotta go, class.
Click to expand...

There's no "I lost my memory" for any of the Fallouts - 1, 2, 3 or NV. 1 and 2, you were just starting out in the world. 3, you're born in the game. NV, you're a nobody, but in all of them you always know who you are.
 
sea said:
Not so sure, really. There are a lot of choices in Fallout 1 and 2 that are very obviously "bad" and unnecessarily so, such as working with Gizmo when you have a much smarter alternative in Killian, or enlisting as a slaver in The Den. I never had to rationalise a good or evil deed based on my needs as a character, even with the fairly scarce resources in the first two games.
Click to expand...

Woah, hold on there before this becomes an entirely different argument. I did not say there were not evil choices to make just to be evil, or that you couldnt play evil just because that is how you wanted to play, that is a way different argument than I was making.

The argument im presenting is more along the lines of this:

For example:

You see a merchant in ANY fallout game, he says "Hi"

Say, in that situation for ALL fallout games you decide to blow his head off for his stuff.

My argument is mainly this:

In FO1- i feel i can rationalize this, to a greater extent than 3/NV, or a bunch of people will die from dehydration

In FO2- Dude keeps coming into my head telling me to hurry the hell up or village will die, so i feel i can rationalize same action, to a greater extent than 3/NV, to save people/loved ones/get dude off my back

In FO3- I feel if i make the choice to kill this merchant for his stuff that i am just being a greedy little bitch and have no other rationalization for it (again, not arguing that you should play this way or that way, that is the way these different games make me and others feel in the same situation). I especially felt bad bc i wanted 3 dogs headband and then realized he wasnt broadcasting his good message to the wastelands anymore, so i reloaded the game.

In FONV: Dont have a memory or any goal except a self driven one, so basically same FO3 feeling comes from that. (this "self driven vs story driven" is a common debate about which is better amongst devs of all games of late)

PS / sidenote, even though i choose to play the "good guy/hero/helper" to everyone in the game, i might still knife the leader of NCR for his armor. +20 ap is such a big jump, that is about the same difference between the ap you would have at 1 agi and the ap you would have at 8 agi. An easier choice to me than killing 3 dog for his +1 luck headpiece... but still me being a little greedy bitch bc i know i could beat the game/every mission without it, it will be a selfish move if i go through with it.
 
sea said:
I understand what you're saying, but I still think the rationalisation given for doing bad things in Fallout and Fallout 2 is pretty poor. Resources aren't so scarce that shooting random people in the face is justified. "I brutally murdered this merchant for ammo so I could kill a bunch more people which probably wasn't necessary to complete my quest in the first place" isn't a very compelling argument in my eyes. Maybe it makes you feel a bit better, but it's pretty shaky to me. Ultimately you're showing a lack of respect for the lives of others.

The fact that the games do a very poor job of ever motivating you as a player to save your people doesn't help - why should I care about all those faceless people in Vault 13? The game tells me I'm supposed to like them and it's my duty to save them, but it hasn't provided me a reason to do so beyond the fact that it's the plot. It's the same problem some films run into - in Star Wars Episode II, for instance, we're asked to identify with characters because of their roles in the story and not because they behave in emotionally engaging ways. Maybe as a writer you think it's "obvious" why players should care about Vault 13, but I know that as a player I was much more interested in exploring the wasteland than I was in saving those xenophobic, undeveloped NPCs in Vault 13.
Click to expand...

Good points. Ironically, we were given the chance to form closer emotional bonds with the dwellers in Fallout 3 yet the story never really capitalized on that early game investment.
 
sea said:
Maybe as a writer you think it's "obvious" why players should care about Vault 13, but I know that as a player I was much more interested in exploring the wasteland than I was in saving those xenophobic, undeveloped NPCs in Vault 13.
Click to expand...

Ok now we are on the same page, the writers of the plot are not motivating us.

"Save your village" is a good motivator for me, and not for you, as you said you would rather explore the wasteland.

But on a plot argument, and not a gameplay argument of "interested in exploring wasteland" which is more motivating reason to you? "Go save your village(including your relatives, i assume)" or "Figure out why dad left the vault(i think a very very close word for word quest for first quest in FO3)"
 
Anarchosyn said:
Good points. Ironically, we were given the chance to form closer emotional bonds with the dwellers in Fallout 3 yet the story never really capitalized on that early game investment.
Click to expand...

Yes, very good point, they should have capitalized on that, but make you care about more of the characters.
 
sea said:
Nalano said:
There's no "I lost my memory" for any of the Fallouts - 1, 2, 3 or NV. 1 and 2, you were just starting out in the world. 3, you're born in the game. NV, you're a nobody, but in all of them you always know who you are.
Click to expand...
Actually, in New Vegas you're shot in the head and have memory loss as a result of that, at least short term, otherwise it'd make no sense for you to not know the various factions, locations and so forth. Pretty much the only thing you know about yourself is based on the note left on your body detailing your courier job. Pretty much stock standard amnesia. By contrast, all the other games have treated you as an outsider, isolated from the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

I never once got the impression that I didn't know where I was or who the factions were. I just got the sense that I wasn't from New Vegas or the Mojave Desert, which would make sense, considering that I'm a courier on a caravan route.
 
Humpsalot2 said:
Ok now we are on the same page, the writers of the plot are not motivating us.

"Save your village" is a good motivator for me, and not for you, as you said you would rather explore the wasteland.

But on a plot argument, and not a gameplay argument of "interested in exploring wasteland" which is more motivating reason to you? "Go save your village(including your relatives, i assume)" or "Figure out why dad left the vault(i think a very very close word for word quest for first quest in FO3)"
Click to expand...

I think there is still the larger issue of Black Isles failure to give sufficient emotional connection to these motivators.

"Save your village" sounds great on paper but my memory was I lived in a village full of pricks that didn't particularly elicit my compassion.

"Save your vault" also sounds great on paper by I don't even remember seeing any of my cohorts in vault dwelling crime (and, of course, their is always that epilogue twist which sets up Arroyo in Fallout 2).

Anyhow, I don't think anybody is saying that Fallout 3's premise was particularly compelling. It wasn't as bad as some make it around here but urgency wouldn't have served the sandbox very well for all the reasons you've already brought up ("why go explore when people are dying!!!").

There point which I think got lost on the first page, however, is one of redundancy. The "urgent" premise has been done (twice, at that). I think New Vegas' premise works perfectly fine. I mean, if you were ambushed, shot, had your memories lost through the experience and left for dead wouldn't you be curious as to why?

Having not bought the game yet I can't say whether the story arch is handled with a sense of grace but I get the impression it's probably left to the player to decide how meaningful that initial encounter is to them. Ultimately, it's just a set-up to bring you back into your life.. as a wastelander..
 
I feel like I should respond to the OP.

Were you disappointed with New Vegas? just like you hated Fallout 3................

I'm curious
Click to expand...

Here's the thing: I'm a cRPG fan first, aRPG fan second. So, gameplay-wise, it's understandable that I don't like FO3 too much since it runs like an aRPG and doesn't have that tactical twist FO1/2 had. The way I see it, Obsidian made very few changes to the way the game plays, and not anything significant enough to make me like it when I didn't in FO3.

On the other hand I think many people will agree with me, that in terms of writing, quest construction, atmosphere and overall feel, NV is a step above FO3, and that when Sawyer calls is a "spiritual sequel" to FO2 he isn't lying. It's not perfect, but it's a significant improvement. That, I feel, will be enough for me to enjoy the game and finish it at least once.
 
I'm absolutely loving New Vegas. THIS is what Fallout 3 should have been. I really hope Obsidian gets the contract to make Fallout 4. If you're reading this guys, awesome job! And that's coming from an old-school fan of the originals.

Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top