Name reasons you thought Fallout 3 was better than New Vegas

[Norzan]

Ever hear of a guy called Shigeru Miyamoto? Also, you just answered your own question. You have to use one thing (the plasma rifle) to serve multiple purposes (gameplay and story).

Except not really answered my own question. We are also talking about RPGs here and Shigeru really doesn't do RPGs (except maybe Super Mario and Legend of the Seven Stars).

In RPGs, there's need to be a reason for things to be where they are. So gameplay and writing can't be separate elements. There's need to be a reason to how something it is the way it is. As soon the writing can't explain how things are the way they are, the gameplay can no longer work. The writing has to work first, for gameplay to even work. You can't just have random loot in a place and have no explanation to why it's there. It doesn't even have to be lore notes, just environmental story telling.

In New Vegas, there's some locations that don't have loot, but there's a reason why. The writing is telling why it's like that. So, the game play isn't automatically shit just because there's nothing to loot. And even then, there's always either something to kill for exp or loot or just the backstory through the location's name in New Vegas. This is why Fallout 3 fails in several locations. There's absolutely nothing saying why this loot is here. Yeah, i get loot, but then i wonder why it's here in the first place. To me that's terrible world building and world building is part of both. And like Black Angel said, making every location "unique and rewarding" kind of makes not that if every single location is like that.

 

[Black Angel]

Writing, world design, call it what you like.

Writing =/= World Design. It's two completely different things, and two completely different elements. "Jet is a highly addictive drug first synthesized by Myron. It is extracted from brahmin dung fumes and administered via an inhaler. When Myron first encountered the Mordinos, they were farming peyote cacti and selling it to tourists as the "Reno Experience."" is writing. Jet appearing in a pre-War safe that doesn't looks like it has been opened in 200 years is world design.

I'll give you an example of a problem I'm working on right now. I have to design a space that feels like a real Walmart-style building to the player, but is also a fun level to play from a gameplay perspective. A real dilemma. When forced to make compromises, I always prioritize the latter. The player will subconsciously fill in any story discrepencies if I do a good enough job. It's just psychology.

That's good and all, but at least you're not soiling on the legacy of Fallout 1&2.

Everybody can go on believing what they like, though. I'm not going to keep arguing with a bunch of gamers who think they know everything about design.

I guess this is where we should stop. I keep reminding you we are not talking about the gameplay design, nor are we denying your arguments about Fallout 3's designs of rewarding players for exploration. We were talking about how Fallout 3 soiled the legacy of Fallout 1&2, and how New Vegas managed to return to its legacy's roots.

In RPGs, there's need to be a reason for things to be where they are. So gameplay and writing can't be separate elements. There's need to be a reason to how something it is the way it is. As soon the writing can't explain how things are the way they are, the gameplay can no longer work. The writing has to work first, for gameplay to even work. You can't just have random loot in a place and have no explanation to why it's there. It doesn't even have to be lore notes, just environmental story telling.

I don't exactly agree with this, because for me the gameplay has to work first. However, to preach to the choir that Norzan is actually singing, I will once again repeat that Fallout 1&2 has (near)perfectly working gameplay, and on top of that they also offer a world that make sense, and top-notch writing. Because they offer an experience that transcend moment-to-moment gameplay, players can immerse themselves into this completely new, strange world that still have these remnants of things that actually existed in real-life, while still enjoying fun and engaging gameplay related to the game's genre. Fallout 3, however, fails to give us that, and because of that we can always say we can just go play other games like Stalker and Metro, for example, that offers exactly the same or even better experience than what Fallout 3 is allegedly good at.

 

[Norzan]

I don't exactly agree with this, because for me the gameplay has to work first.

I'm the opposite, writing and world building, in RPGs at least, has to work even on a basic level first before gameplay. Because the gameplay can be superb but as soon the writing and world building are not even working, i just start to question what i'm doing. And most of the time i just give up and play something else.

 

[TerminallyChill]

I guess this is where we should stop. I keep reminding you we are not talking about the gameplay design, nor are we denying your arguments about Fallout 3's designs of rewarding players for exploration. We were talking about how Fallout 3 soiled the legacy of Fallout 1&2, and how New Vegas managed to return to its legacy's roots.

My mistake. I guess I didn't realize this thread was called 'Name reasons why Fallout 3 soiled the legacy of Fallout 1&2, and how New Vegas managed to return to its legacy's roots'.

Or maybe that's just every thread on this website.

 

[Black Angel]

My mistake. I guess I didn't realize this thread was called 'Name reasons why Fallout 3 soiled the legacy of Fallout 1&2, and how New Vegas managed to return to its legacy's roots'.

Or maybe that's just every thread on this website.

See, this is why I treated you like an asshole, and I'm contemplating of doing so again.

The reason why I brought Fallout 1&2 is so that you would at least understand where people are coming from when they criticize Fallout 3 for its non-sensical world-building, and are okay with New Vegas having (seemingly) pointless locations. The whole picture wouldn't be complete without including the original games, on topic of what Fallout 3 did wrong and, in turn, New Vegas did right.

Now, if we want to go purely by Fallout 3 vs. New Vegas, you should start listing the locations that are pointless by your standard of gameplay perspective, because frankly every locations in New Vegas DOES have a point from gameplay perspective, even if only for something as minor as giving players some early XP like giant ants wandering around Ivanpah Dry Lake.

 

[TerminallyChill]

See, this is why I treated you like an asshole, and I'm contemplating of doing so again.

If anything, I'm on the defensive at this point. You're the one who was talking to me like a child earlier. Daniel was being an idiot starting "meme threads" and suggesting new website features two days after making his account, which is why I don't offer him much respect. I am willing to drop the unnecessary hostility if you are.

The reason why I brought Fallout 1&2 is so that you would at least understand where people are coming from when they criticize Fallout 3 for its non-sensical world-building, and are okay with New Vegas having (seemingly) pointless locations. The whole picture wouldn't be complete without including the original games, on topic of what Fallout 3 did wrong and, in turn, New Vegas did right.

I don't see why you thought this was needed when I clearly agree Fallout 3's world building is garbage, but ok.

Now, if we want to go purely by Fallout 3 vs. New Vegas, you should start listing the locations that are pointless by your standard of gameplay perspective, because frankly every locations in New Vegas DOES have a point from gameplay perspective, even if only for something as minor as giving players some early XP like giant ants wandering around Ivanpah Dry Lake.

Pointless by my standard? Any location that doesn't have at least one unique item, quest, story, or otherwise 'must have' reward. And they aren't really pointless, either. That was Daniel's word. As you said, at least the ants give experience to the player, and there is even a neat car to look at. I would call places like this 'severely underutilized'. Either way, they lead to inconsistent exploration experiences, which is a gameplay flaw dating back to the original game. Thankfully, Fallout (like New Vegas) is a good enough game in other areas to not to need solid exploratiom.

 

[Risewild]

Yeah, I'm vaguely remembering that Bethesda actually let their procedural random generator or something like that to handle things like this, instead of handcrafting them where they should have. Same with level scaling that will eventually says fuck you to character progression. @Risewild can you confirm how loot generation works in both games?

Loot in both games is dictated by two things. Leveled Lists and added items.
Added items are specific items a developer can add into a container or creature inventory. Those items will always be in that container or creature inventory (although some creatures can use some items if they are usable, like stimpaks or food and drink).
Leveled Lists are a list that contains any number of specifically placed items (the developer adds the items to the list) in them. Containers and creatures usually have a setting that says stuff like "get a # of items from this/these Leveled List(s)" and then the game randomly picks that number of items from the Lists.

Having Jet in locked pre-war first-aid kits or locked pre-war safes or desks is because those containers are taking their items from a List that contains Jet in it.

 

[Cobra Commander]

Yeah, that's why that was never a problem for me. Another example, legionarii smoking a cigarette. They can not, but it's part of the AI pack, so I disregard.

 

[Prone Squanderer]

Yes, although it doesn't have to be a plasma rifle or even a weapon at all. It just has to be something unique and rewarding. A holotape with some cool exposition leading to a skeleton would work.

Spoiler: Warning several large images

 

[Black Angel]

If anything, I'm on the defensive at this point. You're the one who was talking to me like a child earlier. Daniel was being an idiot starting "meme threads" and suggesting new website features two days after making his account, which is why I don't offer him much respect. I am willing to drop the unnecessary hostility if you are.

Maybe if you're not so condescending toward people who disagreed with you, I wouldn't 'talk to you like a child'. And what does Daniel starting meme threads has anything to do with the discussion in this thread? Where in his posts in this thread does Daniel acted like when he posts in other threads? Because so far, he's legit trying to participate in this discussion, and you're acting so condescending towards him that I can't help but treat you like an asshole you appear to be.

So much for saying stuff like this:

My mistake. I guess I didn't realize this thread was called 'Name reasons why Fallout 3 soiled the legacy of Fallout 1&2, and how New Vegas managed to return to its legacy's roots'.

Or maybe that's just every thread on this website.

Only for you do the exact same and treat someone in a discussion based on your interaction with them outside the discussion.

I don't see why you thought this was needed when I clearly agree Fallout 3's world building is garbage, but ok.

Again, missing the entire point by fucking miles. I suggest you re-read our discussion in the past few pages and carefully read my points, because frankly you've been repeating the exact same point over and over again without even trying understand mine's and other's points. I suggest you start from this one post of mine. Or, to make it easier, actually try to list these locations you called pointless from 'gameplay standpoint'.

Pointless by my standard? Any location that doesn't have at least one unique item, quest, story, or otherwise 'must have' reward. And they aren't really pointless, either. That was Daniel's word. As you said, at least the ants give experience to the player, and there is even a neat car to look at. I would call places like this 'severely underutilized'.

Daniel didn't say that those locations are pointless, but rather he asked why people thought they're pointless. And YOU are the one who pointed out to him why they're pointless, so it's actually your words.

Now, care to elaborate how to properly utilize these locations as to not have them 'severely underutilized'? Let's start with Ivanpah Dry Lake, for example, and how would the designs from Fallout 3 would make this location not 'severely underutilized'.

Either way, they lead to inconsistent exploration experiences, which is a gameplay flaw dating back to the original game.

Thankfully, Fallout (like New Vegas) is a good enough game in other areas to not to need solid exploratiom.

Care to elaborate further on this statement? How did Fallout 1&2 got inconsistent exploration experiences? And how did New Vegas doesn't have solid exploration already?

 

[TerminallyChill]

Alright, everybody else wins and is a genius. I don't have the patience for this thread anymore.

 

[Black Angel]

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Spoiler: Warning several large images

Am I the only person in this thread who actually designs games? Just curious, because I'm reading a lot of ignorant posts.

Fuck me, now THAT is refreshing. Any headers for what/where you're working on? Saw the walmart comment but that's not too directing. I'm an aspiring game dev myself and really involve myself with critique to get a grasp of how people think about games.

Anyway, I hope you don't get disencouraged. I like it here but people have problems with keeping the goalposts clear and visible in place when it comes to this kind of stuff. It's attempted to bring dirt in every single aspect of the despised title even when it's actually a good things as need to bury it further despite there being more than enough to bring it down fairly. It's annoying and frustrating when we're WAY past the venting frustration phase.

 

[Daniel The NCR Veteran]

Daniel was being an idiot starting "meme threads"

Do you say that to every person who likes memes?

 

[Black Angel]

@TerminallyChill on a more serious note, discussions aren't about winning and losing, or even trying to change someone's mind and flip them over. It's about trading what one has in mind for what another has in the other's mind. That's why I mentioned Fallout 1&2, because we just won't understand the big deal between Fallout 3&NV, unless we look further back and what made the series great in the first place. I gave you so many points to consider, and even elaborated on most of them, but all you do is keep insisting on this one point instead of addressing mine properly. Not to mention you occasionally have to bring up irrelevant things, like how others don't understand game designs (when no one actually tries to argue with you on the point of game designs), or how Daniel made meme threads despite him legit trying to participate in this discussion, or also do cheap shots like "Oh, I thought this thread was about Fallout 3 and New Vegas, not Fallout 1&2!", and the worst of all you threw around buzzwords like Fallout 1&2 had inconsistent exploration but doesn't even try to elaborate on them. That's not how you discuss things with people, man.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

A statement isn't a buzzword. And all those points boil down to FALLOUT 3 SUCKS AND NEW VEGAS ISN'T A GLORIFIED MOD, which are true and accurate except there are probably more incarnations of that in this website alone than threads. Kind of funny that you say "cheap shots" for clear flaws but then keep hammering them when it comes to Fo3's case, lol.

Edit: I don't even LIKE Fallout 3/4. But this decade old hammering is real fucking stale and boring. It's always better to talk about the good in games and games that are worth it than literally and figuratively keep beating the dead horse. It's more productive, fullfilling and in the grander scale better for discussion overall.

 

[TerminallyChill]

Fuck me, now THAT is refreshing. Any headers for what/where you're working on? Saw the walmart comment but that's not too directing. I'm an aspiring game dev myself and really involve myself with critique to get a grasp of how people think about games.

Feel free to send me a message on this website whenever you want, Arnust.

 

[Black Angel]

Where did I keep hammering FO3 with cheap shots? What, the Van Buren video?

Also, this is a thread about naming reasons people thought Fallout 3 was better than New Vegas. As it turns out, there's really not much reasons. And what reasons has been named, is up for discussion, so it was only a matter of time for someone to start giving objections to Reason #1, Reason #2, Reason #3 etc etc.

And while this is just another incarnation of those same old tired threads that has been made in the past to let people see the positives of Fallout 3, I think this thread is somewhat unique because it tries to put Fallout 3 in an immediate contrast to New Vegas. There might be similar thread or even the exact same one, but hey, I'm still relatively new to this forum compared to most other members, and I also don't really have much time to lollygag around the internet these days.

 

[Cobra Commander]

Ok, I'm jump in. Take one of these NV "useless places". Think well about all its aspects, imagine that you are there right now............. NOW REMOVE THE MAP MARKER

Is not it so useless now, eh? instead, it's a nice little element that you found by random in the map, while you traveled between a place that really deserved a map marker for another (towns, vaults, trade centers etc)

Hell, we have a example of this ingame

https://fallout.gamepedia.com/Deathclaw_promontory

But do you know something? I'm glad these map markers exist. Make fast travel easier, and on a map where nothing happens (no random encounters, no traveling friend/foes, no events etc), this is necessary.

The map of NV is simply fantastic, what is not is its lack of life.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

The game only really becomes alive in the cities and different settlements. You go to the outside of New vegas proper's walls and you tell me that it's totally lively. Because you'll be lying. Fallout 3 excuses it with just plain higher density and the (clear) remnants of originally being intended to take only a few decades after the bombs fell, which is continued in the excuse of constant dissaray and basically warzone status. The actually desserted areas are so more believably, in my opinion.

But do you know something? I'm glad these map markers exist. Make fast travel easier, and on a map where nothing happens (no random encounters, no traveling friend/foes, no events etc), this is necessary.

Exactly. There's like ONE traveling merchant and maybe another one and it's a scripted event by the looks of it. The rest are the couple of Star Caps related events and hit squads. That's it.

I actually do really like how New Vegas paces its world through geogrpahy when Fallout 3 is basically flat (there are some big obstacles still but they're often part of areas per se and not the general world). But again, as according to the video I linke dlike five pages back, none is really better than the other. What is more certain is that if they got reversed the maps, neither would really work.