Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fallout: New Vegas Discussion' started by Falloutsurvivor, Oct 21, 2010.
Yet it spoke more to my imagination than "We need you to go out to save the community."
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.
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]
I loved Fallout 1 and 2..... kind of liked fallout 3 only for the exploration........ but Fallout New Vegas blown me away.
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:
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).
i have plenty to comment on...but it's getting late. tomorrow!
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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)"
Yes, very good point, they should have capitalized on that, but make you care about more of the characters.
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.
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.
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.