Name reasons you thought Fallout 3 was better than New Vegas

Norzan said:
Final Fantasy is not really a good example of that. It is established that each game happens in a separate universe (at least the numbered ones, except 10-2 or 13-2 and Lightning Returns), therefore not direct sequels or just sequels.
Click to expand...
Now now. Saying that entire game series are not good examples because it doesn't fit with your idea of a sequel is not a good move. I can name many game series where the games are all about different things and characters and stuff like that.

For example, the Tropico games are all about an Island nation of Tropico, but on each game that island nation is always different and controlled by a different Presidente. They are not in the same timeline or even the same world, they are each in a different alternative Earth. And yet, Tropico 4 is a direct sequel to Tropico 3.

Jagged Alliance games don't follow the story of the previous and all are in different fictitious countries in an alternative Earth too (and there is no way of knowing if that Earth is the same on each game).

Many Paradox game series like Crusaders Kings or Hearts of Iron don't follow each other, they are different games that happen in the same time period in the same place in history. Only the engines and features are different. As a matter of fact, Europa Universalis games (which are already 4 of them) are supposed to be "sequels" to Crusader Kings games (they even have a converter that allows a player to convert their Crusader Kings 2 save game to run in Europa Universalis 4 game), and yet, no one can say EU games are direct sequels to Crusader Kings game series.

The same happens with Medieval Total War game series, the second game is a direct series sequel of the first, but they are the same "game" with different engines and features and not a continuation of each other.

Sid Meier's Civilization game series do not follow each other at all either. Each is trying to be the "same" game with different engines and features. Are you gonna tell me that Civilization 2 is not a direct sequel of Civilization 1 because it doesn't follow up in the same timeline and story?

The examples pile on and on. Using your definition of what is a sequel would mean that entire game series wouldn't have any sequels in them, even when they already have several games in their series.
 
In those cases, those are different ENTRIES in those series and not actual sequels. TerminallyChill already posted the definition of what a sequel is.

For me, a sequel is something that continues what happened in the previous game/games. It happens in the same universe, it expands on several things on the lore and can even add characters that are related to the characters in previous games.

Final Fantasy entries, for the most part, are not sequels. That's why there's 10-2 and 13-2. If they were sequels, 10-2 would be Final Fantasy 11 and 13-2 would be Final Fantasy 14 instead. Each of the main entries is basically their own separate line that can have sequels.

Shogun 2 Total War is not a sequel to Rome Total War. Sure it happens in the same world but completely different regions. But Rome Total War 2 is a sequel to Rome Total War because they are in the same region and it's continuation of that.

My point is, to me, that New Vegas is a sequel to Fallout 1 and 2 and unfortunately 3.

I guess we have a different definition on what a sequel is actually about. Let's just agree to disagree because this is getting off-topic.
 
Last edited:
One thing I don't understand about Fallout 3, and this is the only other extra thing I'll create on here:
Why do people think that locations in Fallout games should only exist if they have loot or that they're related to quests? NV has places where you just discover and they don't have anything in them. These locations are regarded as "Pointless". Why? They're part of the map, it's what makes New Vegas and its surroundings as NV and it's surroundings. There's many places in real life that have no meaning at all but they're there. If you expect loot for every location, then you should expect a gold bar in every abandoned house out there irl. See if that works.
 
Norzan said:
In those cases, those are different ENTRIES in those series and not actual sequels. TerminallyChill already posted the definition of what a sequel is.

For me, a sequel is something that continues what happened in the previous game/games. It happens in the same universe, it expands on several things on the lore and can even add characters that are related to the characters in previous games.

Final Fantasy entries, for the most part, are not sequels. That's why there's 10-2 and 13-2. If they were sequels, 10-2 would be Final Fantasy 11 and 13-2 would be Final Fantasy 14 instead. Each of the main entries is basically their own separate line that can have sequels.

Shogun Total War is not a sequel to Rome Total War. But Rome Total War 2 is a sequel to Rome Total War.

I guess we have a different definition on what a sequel is actually about. Let's just agree to disagree because this is getting off-topic.
Click to expand...
You are once again confusing specific "game" sequels with "game series" sequels. Civilization 2 is a game series sequel of Civilization 1 and Civilization 3 is a game series sequel of both 1 and 2. That is not even questionable...
Once again, you think of sequels as only in story, not in game series, and that is the problem.
I know quite well what a sequel to a movie or book or a specific game is, but "game series" sequels are games that advance the series somehow, not the plot or story (although they can).
 
Arnust said:
Norzan said:
Imagine if New Vegas had the gameplay of the first two games, but with better graphics? I would be all over that shit even more than i do now.
Click to expand...
Imagine if New Vegas didn't exist so you wouldn't even have a point of reference :notworthy:
Click to expand...
Well, if I imagine that New Vegas didn't exist, then I'm also imagining that Fallout 3 didn't exist. If Fallout 3 didn't exist, then that means this would've existed:

Also, on topic of sequels, I think it's pretty obvious that Fallout 3 is in NO way a true/proper sequel to Fallout 2, not even truly 'the next game in the series' going by the fact that it takes place far away from the West Coast, and how it (mis)used a lot of the elements like Jet, Brotherhood of Steel, etc etc. If we're gonna go by gameplay, I guess we can discuss more thoroughly.
 
Risewild said:
You are once again confusing specific "game" sequels with "game series" sequels. Civilization 2 is a game series sequel of Civilization 1 and Civilization 3 is a game series sequel of both 1 and 2. That is not even questionable...
Once again, you think of sequels as only in story, not in game series, and that is the problem.
I know quite well what a sequel to a movie or book or a specific game is, but "game series" sequels are games that advance the series somehow, not the plot or story (although they can).
Click to expand...
I guess we have different terms for that. I call it "entries" and not "game series sequels". Which makes me question why we are even arguing.

That just leaves with what the hell New Vegas is.
 
Daniel The NCR Veteran said:
One thing I don't understand about Fallout 3, and this is the only other extra thing I'll create on here:
Why do people think that locations in Fallout games should only exist if they have loot or that they're related to quests? NV has places where you just discover and they don't have anything in them. These locations are regarded as "Pointless". Why? They're part of the map, it's what makes New Vegas and its surroundings as NV and it's surroundings. There's many places in real life that have no meaning at all but they're there. If you expect loot for every location, then you should expect a gold bar in every abandoned house out there irl. See if that works.
Click to expand...

From a gameplay standpoint, they are pointless. Fallout is a video game. Just because something isn't realistic, doesn't mean it's a bad gameplay mechanic. Should Mario only jump a couple inches off the ground? Would that be fun?

Fallout 3 does loot correctly for the most part. Exploring a location is almost always rewarding in some way.
 
TerminallyChill said:
From a gameplay standpoint, they are pointless. Fallout is a video game. Just because something isn't realistic, doesn't mean it's a bad gameplay mechanic. Should Mario only jump a couple inches off the ground? Would that be fun?
Click to expand...
Unfair comparison. Fallout started as a videogame that tries to simulate real-life post-apocalyptic world, while Mario is... well, whatever it is. And I don't see why did you reply with something such as, "Just because something isn't realistic, doesn't mean it's a bad gameplay mechanic." to Daniel when all he talked about was whether or not locations made sense or not. What Daniel talked about has no connection whatsoever with gameplay mechanics, but rather location/environmental design and its relation to in-game logic (in this case, attempt to simulate real-life post-apocalyptic world, which in this case takes place in the Mojave Wasteland, of which has a real-life counterpart).
 
Black Angel said:
Unfair comparison. Fallout started as a videogame that tries to simulate real-life post-apocalyptic world, while Mario is... well, whatever it is. And I don't see why did you reply with something such as, "Just because something isn't realistic, doesn't mean it's a bad gameplay mechanic." to Daniel when all he talked about was whether or not locations made sense or not. What Daniel talked about has no connection whatsoever with gameplay mechanics, but rather location/environmental design and its relation to in-game logic (in this case, attempt to simulate real-life post-apocalyptic world, which in this case takes place in the Mojave Wasteland, of which has a real-life counterpart).
Click to expand...

He asked why people thought they were pointless. I gave him the answer.
 
TerminallyChill said:
He asked why people thought they were pointless. I gave him the answer.
Click to expand...
Oh, right.

However, I still don't see how they're 'pointless' from gameplay standpoint. I know that you meant it by those locations not giving you loot, but I'll say that's not the right way to see it. Finding those locations but not loot in it does not relate to gameplay mechanics itself, BUT finding those locations in and of itself is part of exploration, which is part of moment-to-moment gameplay, which in turn contributed in telling you what's going on in the larger picture.

Now that I think about it, I actually don't remember any locations in New Vegas that were 'pointless' just because they doesn't have loot on it. Iirc literally every locations have something lying around on it or inside containers in vanilla game.
 
Black Angel said:
Oh, right.

However, I still don't see how they're 'pointless' from gameplay standpoint. I know that you meant it by those locations not giving you loot, but I'll say that's not the right way to see it. Finding those locations but not loot in it does not relate to gameplay mechanics itself, BUT finding those locations in and of itself is part of exploration, which is part of moment-to-moment gameplay, which in turn contributed in telling you what's going on in the larger picture.

Now that I think about it, I actually don't remember any locations in New Vegas that were 'pointless' just because they doesn't have loot on it. Iirc literally every locations have something lying around on it or inside containers in vanilla game.
Click to expand...

When a player spends time poking around an old gas station or searching a racetrack only to find no interesting story, no cool weapon, or no unique set of armor, it makes them think that some locations aren't necessary to investigate. This is why many people feel the exploration is superior in Fallout 3 because it never seems like the player's time is wasted for checking out a location. Just because real life places can be boring and pointless, doesn't mean a game has to immitate this in order to preserve the illusion of reality. Fallout is not a simulation title, it's a role playing game.
 
TerminallyChill said:
When a player spends time poking around an old gas station or searching a racetrack only to find no interesting story, no cool weapon, or no unique set of armor, it makes them think that some locations aren't necessary to investigate. This is why many people feel the exploration is superior in Fallout 3 because it never seems like the player's time is wasted for checking out a location. Just because real life places can be boring and pointless, doesn't mean a game has to immitate this in order to preserve the illusion of reality. Fallout is not a simulation title, it's a role playing game.
Click to expand...
Okay, imagine it as this. Before the whole wasteland, there was the Pre-War era, correct? A race track could of been used back then to host races. That gas station could of been used to fill cars back up. You might ask what's the point in them now after the war, but isn't the whole premise of Fallout like a "crack at what America looks like if it was nuked to shit, and what problems would the human race have to face"? Those race tracks and gas stations might aswell exist in real life too, and imagining them after the nukes would be a cool thing to see. Fallout helps you with that, it's what it was made for, take you into what could of been the future. You can't forget that, even if it's buried beneath the amazing RPG system that shapes up the gameplay.
 
Last edited:
Daniel The NCR Veteran said:
Okay, imagine it as this. Before the whole wasteland, there was the Pre-War era, correct? A race track could of been used back then to host races. That gas station could of been used to fill cars back up. You might ask what's the point in them now after the war, but isn't the whole premise of Fallout like a "crack at what America looks like if it was nuked to shit, and what problems would the human race have to face"? Those race tracks and gas stations might aswell exist in real life too, and imagining them after the nukes would be a cool thing to see. Fallout helps you with that, it's what it was made for, take you into what could of been the future. You can't forget that, even if it's buried beneath the amazing RPG system that shapes up the gameplay.
Click to expand...

The 'premise' of Fallout is that it's a role playing game with a post-apocalyptic setting. You are confusing gameplay with story. It needs to fulfill its duty as a game before the other elements are even taken into account. If visited locations serve no purpose, then the software has failed. It might as well just be a virtual exploration simulator, a movie, or a book if you think its immediate purpose is to tell you a story. I personally think you need to do a little more research about video game development theory before you make any more foolish statements such as this. Not trying to be an asshole.
 
Daniel The NCR Veteran said:
One thing I don't understand about Fallout 3, and this is the only other extra thing I'll create on here:
Why do people think that locations in Fallout games should only exist if they have loot or that they're related to quests? NV has places where you just discover and they don't have anything in them. These locations are regarded as "Pointless". Why? They're part of the map, it's what makes New Vegas and its surroundings as NV and it's surroundings. There's many places in real life that have no meaning at all but they're there. If you expect loot for every location, then you should expect a gold bar in every abandoned house out there irl. See if that works.
Click to expand...
I can hazard a guess...

It's been mentioned before that FO3 is designed like as theme park ride. Around every corner is something to engage and remind the visitor of the theme; in FO3's case, of the wacky Fallout land, and its kooky denizens, and their faux-fifties perspective on everything (bogus interpretations aside). It's like they paid for a ticket to Wallyworld— or more closely... Westworld.

New Vegas doesn't play like a theme park, and when people (expecting the next new thing on display for them) see that there is nothing personally engaging or profitable to them there—in a location that they deigned to visit... they perceive it as a waste, and of being deprived—of... something... of.. whatever it was they weren't expecting—"but it should have been there!"
 
I don't recall any location in New Vegas being a waste in terms of exploring. When it had no loot to pick up, it had an explanation. Some of the times, someone got there before you and it had a little backstory for it.
 
Gizmojunk said:
I can hazard a guess...

It's been mentioned before that FO3 is designed like as theme park ride. Around every corner is something to engage and remind the visitor of the theme; in FO3's case, of the wacky Fallout land, and its kooky denizens, and their faux-fifties perspective on everything (bogus interpretations aside). It's like they paid for a ticket to Wallyworld— or more closely... Westworld.

New Vegas doesn't play like a theme park, and when people (expecting the next new thing on display for them) see that there is nothing personally engaging or profitable to them there—in a location that they deigned to visit... they perceive it as a waste, and of being deprived—of... something... of.. whatever it was they weren't expecting—"but it should have been there!"
Click to expand...

Dude, every Fallout game is a themepark. That's literally how an RPG is designed. Fallout 3 just isn't subtle about it.

In Arroyo you talk to some guys who teach you shit. Your buddy lost their dog Smoke and the well is broken. Hakunin needs you to kill some spore plants. All of this is set up for the player to go trigger. It's not like SimCity or something where shit happens without you. It just has to properly fit the theme.

Norzan said:
I don't recall any location in New Vegas being a waste in terms of exploring. When it had no loot to pick up, it had an explanation. Some of the times, someone got there before you and it had a little backstory for it.
Click to expand...

The only one I can remember off the top of my head is the Ivanpah Dry Lake.
 
Norzan said:
I don't recall any location in New Vegas being a waste in terms of exploring. When it had no loot to pick up, it had an explanation. Some of the times, someone got there before you and it had a little backstory for it.
Click to expand...
Me too. The only reason I brought it up is because other people keep saying that and I finally have a place to discuss it in.

TerminallyChill said:
The 'premise' of Fallout is that it's a role playing game with a post-apocalyptic setting. You are confusing gameplay with story. It needs to fulfill its duty as a game before the other elements are even taken into account. If visited locations serve no purpose, then the software has failed. It might as well just be a virtual exploration simulator, a movie, or a book if you think its immediate purpose is to tell you a story. I personally think you need to do a little more research about video game development theory before you make any more foolish statements such as this. Not trying to be an asshole.
Click to expand...
The game is already there, there are PLENTY of locations with loot (a.k.a purpose in it) and there's more of them than the ones without any loot and just the environmental storytelling. I just like to take a break and take in the additional storytelling. If I wanted Fallout to be something else than a RPG game then I wouldn't of been here talking to any of you because I wouldn't appreciate the games at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top