Is New Vegas crippled by bad writing?

I think the major divide here is that people who have played more of the first games tend to favor FNV more than F3 because more of the creative minds behind the original games worked with it. I like both games but don't like the idea of having so many different outcomes for one single game, I prefer to have canon and just roll with it instead of there being a supposed "this is the canon route" and "these are fun but just here for kicks."

Granted I think FNV is still a great game because of the very fault that I accused it of having. It increases the gameplay and makes things feel less linear, but that's exactly it... just "feels" less linear.

However, to get back to the OP; I think that the writing is pretty subjective when it comes to F3. I loved the storyline in F3... while it was slightly general consumption (i.e. made to appeal to more than just a niche audience) the bond between parents and their children and them serving each other make for a fantastic game. I think the photo at the end definitely pulls at the heart strings especially when hear that music box tune and the slow pan on the photo shot at the beginning of the game.

Maybe I'm just a sap... but personally I think the writing in both games is pretty damn good. Do I think F3 could have benefited from referencing more from the original sources? Sure... I definitely think it could have, but when you take into consideration that it's in a COMPLETELY different location than the originals and none of these characters exactly travel anymore, it doesn't upset me that they're that different. The writing I don't feel suffers from anything other than us being so subjective about it. The only thing I can rely on is that if there are two fans of Fallout discussing the topic, someone will find something they prefer from the other.

I think that speaks more to the strength of the series than the writing between games.
 
durstlimpbizkit said:
However, to get back to the OP; I think that the writing is pretty subjective when it comes to F3.
Click to expand...

FO3? The OP was, "Is New Vegas crippled by bad writing?"

The OP has not demonstrated that there is bad writing in FO:NV, nor that there is enough of it to "cripple" the game.

durstlimpbizkit said:
Do I think F3 could have benefited from referencing more from the original sources? Sure... I definitely think it could have, but when you take into consideration that it's in a COMPLETELY different location than the originals and none of these characters exactly travel anymore, it doesn't upset me that they're that different.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen, fans of the old series are not objecting to FO3 not having enough references to old lore. Quite the opposite, in fact. In terms of the writing, their objections boil down to:

* Too linear narrative structure (i.e. the player is rail-roaded into following the main quest at every turn)
* Plot holes/non-sequiturs/illogical developments related to quest-design, area design, etc.
* Bland, forgettable characters
* Obnoxious characters
* Bad Dialogue
* Cheesy family story
* Elements from the original games that are not consistent with how those elements were presented previously (i.e. the GECK, FEV, etc). The problem is not a lack of references to the originals, it's how the existing references were handled.
* Elements from the original games that are just a formulaic rehash of things we've already seen (Enclave, BOS, Supermutants, etc)

This is of course ignoring complaints about game mechanics, engine, difficulty, etc, although in many cases these things factor into the writing as well.

These points have been discussed to death both here and elsewhere on the forum. It's not really about "Oh, the original designers didn't work on FO3", or "FO3 didn't have enough references to the originals" as much as it's about "FO3 was of significantly lower quality than the originals in just about every way that counts."

lujo said:
What I'm wondering is, how much of a problem does NV have with this?
Click to expand...

I don't think it really has this problem. Most XP you get is in fixed increments - a certain amount for hacking/picking locks, a certain amount for killing enemies, a certain amount for discovering locations, etc. Every 5 quests you complete gets you a bonus XP. Certainly, completing some quests does net you a lot of XP, but generally these are proportional to the length and difficulty of the quest involved. There are no XP bonanzas that you can just stumble into. There are a few loot bonanzas, but they generally require you to be at a high level in order to get ahold of (i.e. Repconn HQ, Vault 34, Deathclaw or Nightstalker caves, etc).

Exploring is possible, but dangerous precisely because there isn't much level scaling - going too far out into the wastes is a real gamble at earlier levels, and even at mid levels depending on the location and your character type.

I would say the biggest balance issue is that the DLCs are all (with the exception of Honest Hearts) much more difficult than the vanilla game, and after fighting Ghost People and Roboscorpians and Marked Men (and returning with DLC weapons and loot), the Mojave seems like a cakewalk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are some people that called FNV too linear in the same regard. Now I don't think FNV was crippled by bad writing, I think it was crippled by bugs. However with F3 being labeled too linear, I don't feel that's the case... honestly I ended up getting to where I needed to go in a variety of different ways and skipped the GNR quests completely because I didn't go to that part of the city and wound up finding 'dad' first on accident.

However to just put that debate to bed (sorry didn't mean for it to be that way) I liked FNV for what it was and the setting helped bring the focus back to where it all started. For people who never played the original games you get a little bit more of an introduction to elements unmentioned in F3 and I just don't feel like bad writing did anything... it's just glitches that brought it down. I really liked the writing behind Mr. House even if he was a Howard Hughes rip-off but the courier's backstory was pretty interesting fleshed out once you bring in the DLC's.
 
The worst thing that make NV crippled is beth's horrible quest marker and auto journal.
even non-linear plot become linear with those idiotic tools.

For writing, NV did better job than Gothic3 in my opinion.
but for gameplay, G3's game play is far more non-linear and attractive and mysterious even NV's character, factions, sub quests are written more attractive than G3.

why? because unlike NV, there aren't no system to add walkthrough in the game at G3. the biggest feature of RPG is solving mystery. so if there is any spoilers, the RPG will be spoiled.

unfortuantely, beth add stupid walkthrough(+spoiler) directly in game since oblivion.

even Obsidian did great job on making game (far) better than fo3, that stupid walkthrough spoil the game.
 
Last edited:
durstlimpbizkit said:
However with F3 being labeled too linear, I don't feel that's the case... honestly I ended up getting to where I needed to go in a variety of different ways and skipped the GNR quests completely because I didn't go to that part of the city and wound up finding 'dad' first on accident.
Click to expand...

When I was first playing the game and I was doggedly doing my best to give it all the credit I could, I would seize on this as an example of how the quest structure kinda sorta paralleled the originals, but I don't think that's really the case. The plotline is the same straight point-to-point shot no matter what you do; the only way you can vary from the script at all is by skipping a waypoint or two in the sequence. If you skip the GNR stuff, it's because you stumbled onto Rivet City, Project Purity, or Vault 112. If you skip Rivet City, it's because you stumbled onto Project Purity or Vault 112. If you skip Project Purity, it can only be because you found Vault 112. Without anything built into the game to guide you to these places aside from the previous quest in the core plotline, it's not so much player agency as it is foreknowledge or blind luck that drives the plot foreward in these cases, and after Vault 112 there's no player choice involved in the plot sequence at all.
 
durstlimpbizkit said:
don't like the idea of having so many different outcomes for one single game, I prefer to have canon and just roll with it instead of there being a supposed "this is the canon route" and "these are fun but just here for kicks."
Click to expand...

Then, don't play the Fallout games?
 
New Vegas is only crippled by lack of Legion content (to give them more nuanced and even presentation with the rest of the content), plus gameplay and presentation inherited from Fallout 3 (in where the implemented tweaks and improvements were not sufficient to be a cure, but rather felt like simple first aid -- and in some cases, felt like an improvement towards a wrong, imo, direction).
 
Walpknut said:
durstlimpbizkit said:
don't like the idea of having so many different outcomes for one single game, I prefer to have canon and just roll with it instead of there being a supposed "this is the canon route" and "these are fun but just here for kicks."
Click to expand...

Then, don't play the Fallout games?
Click to expand...

Oh I'll keep playing them; I just like being able to keep my ducks in a row when it comes to story. The occasional off-beat alternate reality stuff like Assassin's Creed III's Tyranny of King Washington were an interesting deviation... but I kind of got lost in all the different stories that I wasn't even aware of taking place when I first played FNV.
 
It'll be interesting to see how Obsidian handles the question of canon going forward. It is the first time they've had to reconcile multiple (main plotline) endings, but most of them end up leading to the same thing-- the Legion doomed whether they know it or not, the NCR either beaten back out of the Mojave or further overtaxed from having to occupy it as a province. I think the best bet is that the next game they handle is going to be at a far enough remove from the events of New Vegas (in terms of both time and distance) that they can address the outcomes of the second battle of Hoover indirectly.
 
durstlimpbizkit said:
Walpknut said:
durstlimpbizkit said:
don't like the idea of having so many different outcomes for one single game, I prefer to have canon and just roll with it instead of there being a supposed "this is the canon route" and "these are fun but just here for kicks."
Click to expand...

Then, don't play the Fallout games?
Click to expand...

Oh I'll keep playing them; I just like being able to keep my ducks in a row when it comes to story. The occasional off-beat alternate reality stuff like Assassin's Creed III's Tyranny of King Washington were an interesting deviation... but I kind of got lost in all the different stories that I wasn't even aware of taking place when I first played FNV.
Click to expand...

Linear stories are generally uninspired and pretty much give no control to the player as to how the outcome of the game goes. That was one of the weakest points of the Assassin's Creed series was the fact that you were horribly boxed in, and always had to complete a mission the same way or you'd fail it.

Fallout 3 had a similar weakness, that if you didn't play as a morally righteous and upstanding citizen, then you were generally punished and loathed.
 
durstlimpbizkit said:
Walpknut said:
durstlimpbizkit said:
don't like the idea of having so many different outcomes for one single game, I prefer to have canon and just roll with it instead of there being a supposed "this is the canon route" and "these are fun but just here for kicks."
Click to expand...

Then, don't play the Fallout games?
Click to expand...

Oh I'll keep playing them; I just like being able to keep my ducks in a row when it comes to story. The occasional off-beat alternate reality stuff like Assassin's Creed III's Tyranny of King Washington were an interesting deviation... but I kind of got lost in all the different stories that I wasn't even aware of taking place when I first played FNV.
Click to expand...

So seems like you need to play simpler games... if you're thinking that getting "lost" in situation of the game can be bad. It's actually great and it's only showing complexity of the story and game itself.

And comparing some low-action game like AC to best sandbox cRPG released in last years... well. Not cool.
 
I don't see how a game giving you so much freedom that every playthrough will let you discover something new unless you were looking up quests on a guide is a bad thing. Seriously, if you dislike the open endness and non linearity in games you shouldn't be Playing Fallout.
 
If he enjoys Fallout he should play Fallout, period, and his expressing a dissenting opinion is no reason for anyone not to take him at his word when he says he did. It doesn't seem to me that he's arguing against forking plotlines or choice and consequence, anyway-- if anything, the vision he espouses for Fallout is closer to the experiences delivered by the original games than New Vegas was. I loved NV, but it marked a very serious departure for the series in terms of narrative structure (among other things).

As much freedom as the Interplay Fallouts gave you in determining what kind of character you wanted to play and to what degree you wanted to save or sunder the wasteland, your efforts were always leading up to a clear, canon outcome. Many of the decisions you made regarding specific people or places were often invalidated by later games, but you never felt like the core questline (and by abstraction, your entire experience) were what-ifs. Good or evil, the water chip was always found, the Unity defeated, The Rig obliterated, Arroyo saved. New Vegas gives you so much more agency over the game's story, but at the cost of finishing with any clear idea of where the core region is headed or what the conditions will canonically be going into the next game.

Personally, I'm fine with this-- I like player choice having such an amplified impact on the narrative of the game, and, as has been argued in other threads, if Obsidian wants to they can easily make it so that all possible outcomes of New Vegas lead smoothly and organically to the same general set of circumstances for the NCR region and the greater Mojave. Durst's sentiments here aren't at all out of keeping with the series' traditions, though.
 
I agree that the multiple endings feature has increased greatly in Fallout New Vegas, but i don't really see it as a departure on itself.

In the Fallout 1 demo, you had 4 endings.
In the actual Fallout 1, you had the possibility to join the unity. Even if it is tiny in the actual game, it seems the dev intended to go deeper into that alternate path.
In Fallout 2, it would have been unlikely to have the ability to join the enclave, as their virus would have killed you too.
In Fallout Tactics, you have 4 endings and none have been chose as canon.

About the slideshow in Fo1-Fo2, there are some endings that were indeed been chose as canon in following games, but i don't treat the town-by-town outcomes as something minor, as ultimatly, it is the fate of the whole gameworld that is depicted. The sum of them is as much important as the Unity/Enclave plots. Also, in Fallout 2, the Enclave is an important end-plot, but it is not enough extended to make feel the others plots as secondaries.

It isn't unlikely, IMO, that the devellopers would have gone deeper in multiple outcomes in older games, given more time and ressources.
 
From all Interplay/Obsidian games, it seems like only FNV has been fully developed in the terms of ending slides.
FO1, a lot of missing stuff. Same for FO2.
But it's rather clear that developers themselves always wanted as much options, as possible.
Just look at Arcanum (unlucky which still has a lot of bugged endings), where you have:
a) Joining to the enemy, like in Fo1 with unity.
b) Simply defeating him. (but still you have possibility to defeat him by using artifact X/artifact Y/option Z).
c) Talking him out.
d) Four endings about becoming god!
e) Some weird ending, where you join to enemy at start, then slain him, and become Death's Champion, wiping out almost entire life from the world.
And I'm saying only about "main" ending, not "town slides".

So I completely agree with naossano, about Interplay intentions from beginning.
 
Last edited:
Replayed FO:NV recently (finally!) and tried it as a Legionary. That was probably a mistake... siding with the Legion feels woefully under-developed.

The game wasn't as bad as I remember, and I picked up on things I'd forgotten about (like the radio actually noticing when you do things) but, probably because I sided with the Legion, I still felt really unsatisfied with how the game played out. I think I need to try either siding with, or just not pissing off NCR.

I also finished The Pitt again last night (wasn't as fun as I remember) and I'm bumbling around the northeast of the Capital Wasteland. I still can't put my finger on it, but something about FO3 makes it appeal more despite the fact I prefer the NV mechanics, (most) of the equipment and Hardcore Mode.
 
New Vegas does make the plot leap from revenge to now your the center of a struggle for power in the region for no reason other than you followed through on your desire for revenge. Our investment in the NCR is hey they look like pre WW2 USA and they're corrupt, allegory for American society. House is the visionary rich guy from before the war. The Legion exists to check of the bad guy box. Your option just seemed thrown in for those who like doing their own thing. That being said, the main faction leaders were well written and so were the companions, but that doesn't make up for me not being invested in the regional power struggle. An anti Legion/NCR compaign would have been nice, a good old run and gun affair to keep me interested and dislike who ever I was fighting. As well as seeing more of Legion society and a few Legion controlled towns. Also a Broken Steel like clean up mission afterwards would have been nice and maybe got me more invested in the main faction I chose.

As for the Bethesda hating purists, I didn't like New Vegas for all those reasons. Fallout 3's story was a bit generic, but at least it pulled me in and got me invested with what was going on. Unless the game glitched out, I didn't see the Enclave before the Waters of Life quest. So they rode in at a good time. House is just some ominous thing off in the distance talking through a robot. The Enclave may or may not exist in Fallout 3 until the show up during your first play through. I did like Fallout 3, sometimes I'm not sure if it is better or worse than Oblivion, but it was a good game. It isn't my favorite game of all time, Saints Row 2 takes that honor, but it is easily #5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top