I recently played the classics for the first time...

To each their own, I prefer isometric turn based over first person shooters because to me first person shooters are just ridiculously easy in my opinion making the weapons skills in New Vegas sort of pointless when I can manually aim just fine where as the originals give meaning to raising those weapon skills. Of course they're not exactly the most realistic but could be improved upon.
 
Yeah, that's something I've never thought any game ever did truly right. Still, I just don't have the patience or foresight for a turn-based game.

But... manual aiming is still wobbly when your weapons stats are low, so I guess that's a pretty alright system.
 
Ben Soto said:
Is it bad if I say that I really don't care about the originals? They have great stories, dialogue and choice/consequences, but I find the gameplay and aesthetic (though not the technical fidelity) to be really clunky and poor. It's a personal disdain of turn-based RPGs I suppose, but still... New Vegas is really a far superior game.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't care about it as long as the roleplaying aspect of the game is great. However, since the future games will be in first person, they should really improve the shooting because it was quite lacking in Fallout 3 and New Vegas.

I haven't played Fallout 4 but it seems like this was one of the things Bethesda did right, although ennemies still seems to be bullet sponges. I would prefer if everything died faster and the gameplay didn't rely on simply spamming stimpacks.
 
Ben Soto said:
Is it bad if I say that I really don't care about the originals? They have great stories, dialogue and choice/consequences, but I find the gameplay and aesthetic (though not the technical fidelity) to be really clunky and poor. It's a personal disdain of turn-based RPGs I suppose, but still... New Vegas is really a far superior game.
Click to expand...

Well on a mechanic point of view New Vegas sucks just as bad. The gameplay is pretty bad (stand and shoot till one guy falls down anyone?) and the UI is also pretty poor. The real argument is which one is better written, which will not be answered I assure you.
 
New Vegas is the walking definition of "more than the sum of its parts." It's individual mechanics aren't very good, but they work so well together.
 
TorontRayne said:
New Vegas was pure Alchemy on Obsidian's part. They conjured pure gold out of shit.
Click to expand...

Obsidian is Tony Stark, really. With limited time, pressure from the outside and a box of scraps, they construct a miracle, even if it's somewhat still imperfect. And they escape from that pressure! (They were having financial troubles at the time, I think.) Now they're back where they belong.

And by that same metaphor, they can perfect it with riches and resources, with the right attitude and the an open-ended amount of time. Holy crap, Obsidian really is Tony Stark. :shock:

Going wide with the metaphor. Since Iron Man became famous worldwide, it's safe to say that if Obsidian has the money and support it needs, they could make the perfect Fallout and have it be popular all over the world.
 
Dr Fallout said:
They did... though I'm guessing we're talking about the writing? Because the gameplay was still pretty bad.
Click to expand...

No. The gameplay is fine too. It isn't preferred for a Fallout game, but it is adequate. You couldn't have gotten a better game out of that engine. Another year of development and people would have worshiped it. :grin:

Fallout: New Vegas is an example of a FPS RPG done right. I only wish the game could have been the way it was originally intended with Van Buren. Imagine New Vegas in the style of the original Fallout games. :puppy-dog:
 
TorontRayne said:
Dr Fallout said:
They did... though I'm guessing we're talking about the writing? Because the gameplay was still pretty bad.
Click to expand...

No. The gameplay is fine too. It isn't preferred for a Fallout game, but it is adequate. You couldn't have gotten a better game out of that engine. Another year of development and people would have worshiped it. :grin:

Fallout: New Vegas is an example of a FPS RPG done right. I only wish the game could have been the way it was originally intended with Van Buren. Imagine New Vegas in the style of the original Fallout games. :puppy-dog:
Click to expand...

Ehh I find the gameplay bad still...
 
Wait were the weapons wobbly depending on skill? I only had trouble with the sniper rifle scopes when my guns skill wasn't high enough. I must of never noticed then as I was able to snipe things with a pistol from rifle distance. I don't like the gameplay myself as it's a mix between clunky and easy. Still a nice game but not a fan of the gameplay.
 
MercenarySnake said:
Wait were the weapons wobbly depending on skill? I only had trouble with the sniper rifle scopes when my guns skill wasn't high enough. I must of never noticed then as I was able to snipe things with a pistol from rifle distance. I don't like the gameplay myself as it's a mix between clunky and easy. Still a nice game but not a fan of the gameplay.
Click to expand...

That's because pistols have a low skill requirement (I've seen one that had no requirement) whereas rifles have a high requirement.
 
beans00 said:
Ben Soto said:
Is it bad if I say that I really don't care about the originals? They have great stories, dialogue and choice/consequences, but I find the gameplay and aesthetic (though not the technical fidelity) to be really clunky and poor. It's a personal disdain of turn-based RPGs I suppose, but still... New Vegas is really a far superior game.
Click to expand...

Why would it be bad lol, you shouldn't let people on the internet especially a forum like this one tell you what to like or what not to like.

The original F0 games are my favorite games of all time but if i didn't play them in the 90s or even early 2000's I probably never would have played them
Click to expand...

I don't get why would the forum should be special in any way. Yes, the guy shouldn't let anyone (not only on the internet) tell him what to like or dislike. But that's it, this forum has nothing special in that regard.
As for the when you play it, you might be surprised. I played the original Fallouts after New Vegas was already out, and I still prefer them to the newer ones.
 
I played NV first, but I was technically introduced via Fallout 1, since my first experience with the series was mynameisnotlily's LP of Fallout 1/2. I played the numbered games (1, 2 and 3) right after NV and I wasn't terribly interested in any of them. When people say F1/2 have dated mechanics, I'm inclined to agree. Still, they have stories and characters more interesting than many modern games.

COUGH METAL GEAR SOLID V COUGH VENOM SNAKE IS BORING AS HELL COUGH COME ON HE'S VOICED BY KIEFER SUTHERLAND COUGH WHY SPEND THAT MUCH MONEY ON AN EXPENSIVE ACTOR AND BARELY USE HIM COUGH THAT'S BETHESDA'S SHTICK COUGH

Sorry. I'm on the postgame of MGSV and I'm rather annoyed.
 
Well that came out of nowhere, yes I already know Venom Snake is the equivalent of a wet newspaper. What a waste. The ending is also a dick punch as well, atleast it had good gameplay(that's all it did good besides gorgeous graphics, seriously it looks way better than Fallout 4 and runs at 60 FPS at max settings with no drops while Fallout 4 must of used a random number generator to determine framerate as it looks dated in comparison and runs like ass).
 
One last thing I have to say on MGSV (I should probably go start up a thread in General Gaming for it but I'm sleepy) is that I already suck at the game, I don't need to do missions with conditions like total onsite procurement or total stealth. I especially hate missions where I can't call in mortar fire or the support helicopter. I don't think I'll actually beat the post-game because I can't stand these modifiers. Also, I have to disagree with you on the graphics. I'm playing on X360 and they're not bad, but they're a far cry from "gorgeous." That said, it's still a great game worthy of the Metal Gear name and serious contender for my personal GOTY... though I think I've played, like, one or two other games from this year and I don't remember them.

If I were to compare MGSV with what I've seen of F4's story... um... sorry, Kojima, but the SS is infinitely more interesting than Venom Snake. Like Mercenary said, he's the equivalent of a wet newspaper, and I voted "HATE NEWSPAPERS." Ironically, it's where I feel F4's voiced protag shines, since at least s/he gets a character. Snake doesn't have one, which is weird, since his predecessor (MGS3's Naked Snake, voiced by David Hayter) was just so damn lovable as a character.

Their plots are equally as contrived, though. Before the big plot twist (I won't spoil that for people who haven't played the game yet) Snake's survival is a fucking miracle (he had a vagina bomb go off in his face. No, I'm not making that up.) and the rest of the plot goes downhill from there. It's a fun plot, but not exactly the kind of genius I've come to expect from Kojima. Meanwhile, Fallout 4 has a plot so shallow that it makes Borderlands look like the first edition of Les Miserables. Seriously, I don't mind the cryopods that much, but are they ever even close to explained? Why don't we use these elsewhere? It's frustrating. The mutants are dumb, the Institute is a huge missed opportunity (I haven't seen so much worldbuilding go to waste since Power Rangers Super Megaforce) and don't get me started on the freaking Minutemen.

Good grief. I just wrote three paragraphs and a good chunk of that was off-topic derailment, while the rest was me hating on a game I don't even own yet. Oops. Well, I'll leave now before I end up destroying this thread.
 
Wasn't Kojima fucked over halfway by Konami or something? I thought he never managed to finish the rest of the game and just had to trail off there. For a forcibly incomplete game, MGS: V turned out fantastically. Of course, I could be wrong, but I think Kojima's development plan for PP was cut short.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top