Name reasons you thought Fallout 3 was better than New Vegas

Make no mistake, the #1 issue of New vegas that detracts the most from it is, indeed, the dated ass gamebryo engine and all it ensues. But we just wouldn't have had it out of that scenario. It was a (succesful) attempt at make a snack between installments to appease the fans and keep the hype up. Making a completely standalone development and not the glorified Total Conversion that it is, while platonic, was just not gonna happen. I'm sure that one of the parallel realities has a New Vegas where it's the case. But we're just not in it so tough titties.
 
Make no mistake, the #1 issue of New vegas that detracts the most from it is, indeed, the dated ass gamebryo engine and all it ensues. But we just wouldn't have had it out of that scenario. It was a (succesful) attempt at make a snack between installments to appease the fans and keep the hype up. Making a completely standalone development and not the glorified Total Conversion that it is, while platonic, was just not gonna happen. I'm sure that one of the parallel realities has a New Vegas where it's the case. But we're just not in it so tough titties.
And yes, me asking for New Vegas to have the gameplay of the first two is an unrealistic wish that i know it wouldn't have happened then and it's not gonna happen now.

Even if New Vegas has the craptastic gameplay of Fallout 3, i'm glad it exists. At least a good game was made out of the Gamebryo engine. At least since Morrowind.

Ooh, called the fuck out. Are you going to take that, @Norzan?
Was i supposed to be offended by what Arnust said? Because i don't care.
 
I have no qualms with the Gamebryo engine; of all the peeves and flaws of the recent Bethesda games, and New Vegas, Gamebryo doesn't even list among them to me; it's negligible.
 
I've seen all of these. ;)


Gamebryo is a renderer. It uses middleware for physics AFAIK. Some used HAVOK, others use PHYSX.

It's been used in racing games, RTS games, and many others... Mobygames.com lists 97 titles.
I have no qualms with the engine itself... but I do have some issues with how they chose to use it in a official Fallout sequel.

Also, it is the case that FO3 & NV shipped with editors, and there is no way to know for certain whether a game was running mods at the time they recorded it. I have seen videos of the game that show glitches that happened to me, when I imported my own (defective) assets.
 
Last edited:
Nope. Again, i don't dismiss an entire franchise on the very first game i play. I try the others even if i find no redeeming qualities in the first one i played.

Don't think about it, it's just how i work.

I defend this. One of the first games I played when I bought Xbox360 was Assassins Creed 1.

Aside from the graphics that were very beautiful and......ok, the ambiance in the past (and only in the past, FUCK the parts of the present) I just do not have anything good to say about this game. It was and is one of the worst games I've ever played in history. I hate. I hate it with all my might.

But I played the second because why not and I liked it a lot. I played III, and it sucks. I played IV and it's very good. And so on.
 
Imagine if New Vegas had the gameplay of the first two games, but with better graphics, while keeping everything else that made New Vegas great? I would be all over that shit even more than i do now.
Would rather have both Beth's FO3 and New Vegas never exists in exchange for Van Buren(The real Fallout 3) to actually happen.
 
Would rather have both Beth's FO3 and New Vegas never exists in exchange for Van Buren(The real Fallout 3) to actually happen.
For Beth's Fallout 3, yes. But for New Vegas, damn that's hard. If New Vegas was eventually made or something similar to New Vegas after Van Buren, then yes. Of course New Vegas with the gameplay of the first two games.
 
New Vegas was a FO3 spin-off—not a Fallout 2 spin off. I would have preferred there have been no Bethesda influences at all.
 
In terms of writing, characters and story, felt much more like a sequel to Fallout 2. Didn't really see any Bethesda influences in it. Unless you count gameplay.

New Vegas was pretty much the best outcome of a terrible situation.
 
In terms of writing, characters and story, felt much more like a sequel to Fallout 2. Didn't really see any Bethesda influences in it. Unless you count gameplay.
They were on the leash. I always count gameplay—more than anything else.
 
Maybe I'm an idiot, but isn't New Vegas basically Van Buren? Wasn't it supposed to be about Caeser's Legion and the NCR?
 
They were on the leash. I always count gameplay—more than anything else.
True. But like i said in my edit in that post, it was the best outcome of a terrible situation. About gameplay, for me it depends. I can live with subpar gameplay if it leads to good story telling, characters and world building. I think New Vegas delivers on those, for the most part.
 
How does New Vegas have bad gameplay though? There are traits, skill checks, the faction system, a companion wheel, crafting, and resource management in the form of hardcore mode. It's deep as hell. Sure, the engine and combat leaves something to be desired, but the stuff that matters is pretty much all intact. It's certainly no worse than the original Fallout in terms of systems.
 
More like the shooting sucks. It has the same floatiness and lack of impact that Fallout 3 has. It is better because of iron sights being an actual thing and bullet spread being nowhere as bad as Fallout 3.
 
How does New Vegas have bad gameplay though?
Foremost, (like FO3) it lacks the series' combat mechanics. It's not turn based. It's not 3D-isometric. Its skills are mostly threshold (instead of percentile) based. This means that the PC is guaranteed to succeed, or guaranteed to fail.

Skills like lockpick are manual actions of the player, and can be gamed; just like the shooting mechanics... and so neither of these hinges on the character's own personal abilities. The reverse is true: The player can fail where the skilled character should have succeeded.
They can break all of their lock picks by ineptness... yet the skilled PC would never break a lock pick. Lock-picks don't break (unless horribly abused)—bobby-pins don't break either. In Fallout you didn't even NEED lock picks, they just helped greatly; it was a mechanic of the games that tools aided skill checks; not enabled them*. If you didn't have a lock pick, you used anything handy; like a bobby pin, or a spring, or anything suitable.

The whole point of the lock pick minigame is player agency—when there should be none. Player agency in an RPG is to develop the character to handle certain situations...the ones they are skilled in. Handing it over to the player for direct input is taking it away from the character, and having the player do it. Think about the player doing what the character's skill is supposed to decide.

Crippling injuries. Fallout made the ability to correct crippling injuries a character development path. First Aid didn't cut it, the PC had to BE a doctor, or go find one. FO3 and NV allow the character to fix concussions and broken limbs with an injection, and the medical skill magically improves the effect of drugs.

Lastly... it HAS ironsights. Throughout the Fallout series—until FO3, it has always been that the character attacks the selected target—personally. They aim, and they use their skills and aptitude to do it—and they can fail. The difference between a critical hit, and a knick, is the character's aim, but the later games all use the player's own aiming and timing to make the attacks. This means that knick & scratch wounds that the player makes at point blank with the gun centered on the target's head appear ludicrous. They are aiming better than the character is capable of; shooting faster than the character is capable of... And this works in reverse too. The skilled character can miss their shot because the player didn't point the barrel at the target.
___
Peeves: NV prevents map-travel when overloaded or crippled... this is the most useful time in the game to ever use map travel—and you can't.
bonk.gif


Wild Wasteland is an optional trait instead of being the world as it is; and so it actually costs a personal trait to opt-in. In Fallout, the world outside civilization was a scary place (more so than inside settlements). Because you really couldn't know what to expect.
 
Last edited:
The cars?
The cars are one of the worst "detail" in Fallout 3. Electric cars do not explode... Bethesda really didn't understand that in the world of Fallout cars were not nuclear cars, they were just starting to be electric cars (very few had been made by the time bombs fell), most were normal cars that run on normal petrol/gasoline. After 200 years those cars wouldn't have gone BOOOOOOOM by being hit with a shotgun or rifle, they would have been just metal husks.
Not to mention that if the cars would be nuclear cars, they would all have exploded when the bombs hit... After all, the impact of nukes would have been millions of times the impact of three rifle shots.
Peeves: NV prevents map-travel when overloaded or crippled... this is the most useful time in the game to ever use map travel—and you can't.
bonk.gif
Just to point out that the not traveling while over-encumbered is a engine mechanic since Oblivion. Fallout 3 also has it. At least Fallout New Vegas made a perk to allow you to travel when over-encumbered, requiring high Survival skill (which makes good use of the skill). >_>
 
Foremost, (like FO3) it lacks the series' combat mechanics. It's not turn based. It's not 3D-isometric. Its skills are mostly threshold (instead of percentile) based. This means that the PC is guaranteed to succeed, or guaranteed to fail.

Skills like lockpick are manual actions of the player, and can be gamed; just like the shooting mechanics... and so neither of these hinges on the character's own personal abilities. The reverse is true: The player can fail where the skilled character should have succeeded.
They can break all of their lock picks by ineptness... yet the skilled PC would never break a lock pick. Lock-picks don't break (unless horribly abused)—bobby-pins don't break either. In Fallout you didn't even NEED lock picks, they just helped greatly; it was a mechanic of the games that tools aided skill checks; not enabled them*. If you didn't have a lock pick, you used anything handy; like a bobby pin, or a spring, or anything suitable.

The whole point of the lock pick minigame is player agency—when there should be none. Player agency in an RPG is to develop the character to handle certain situations...the ones they are skilled in. Handing it over to the player for direct input is taking it away from the character, and having the player do it. Think about the player doing what the character's skill is supposed to decide.

Crippling injuries. Fallout made the ability to correct crippling injuries a character development path. First Aid didn't cut it, the PC had to BE a doctor, or go find one. FO3 and NV allow the character to fix concussions and broken limbs with an injection, and the medical skill magically improves the effect of drugs.

Lastly... it HAS ironsights. Throughout the Fallout series—until FO3, it has always been that the character attacks the selected target—personally. They aim, and they use their skills and aptitude to do it—and they can fail. The difference between a critical hit, and a knick, is the character's aim, but the later games all use the player's own aiming and timing to make the attacks. This means that knick & scratch wounds that the player makes at point blank with the gun centered on the target's head appear ludicrous. They are aiming better than the character is capable of; shooting faster than the character is capable of... And this works in reverse too. The skilled character can miss their shot because the player didn't point the barrel at the target.
___
Peeves: NV prevents map-travel when overloaded or crippled... this is the most useful time in the game to ever use map travel—and you can't.
bonk.gif


Wild Wasteland is an optional trait instead of being the world as it is; and so it actually costs a personal trait to opt-in. In Fallout, the world outside civilization was a scary place (more so than inside settlements). Because you really couldn't know what to expect.

Alright I'm convinced. Thanks for making me hate my favorite game. :rip:

The cars are one of the worst "detail" in Fallout 3. Electric cars do not explode... Bethesda really didn't understand that in the world of Fallout cars were not nuclear cars, they were just starting to be electric cars (very few had been made by the time bombs fell), most were normal cars that run on normal petrol/gasoline. After 200 years those cars wouldn't have gone BOOOOOOOM by being hit with a shotgun or rifle, they would have been just metal husks.
Not to mention that if the cars would be nuclear cars, they would all have exploded when the bombs hit... After all, the impact of nukes would have been millions of times the impact of three rifle shots.

I just meant like the design of them, but personally I find the nuclear reactor thing funny and not a bad retcon compared to half the other shit they butchered.
 
Back
Top