Why do people think New Vegas was actually good?

I agree, in terms of the narrative the map-travel worked for Fallout 1 and 2 due to the sheer scale of the Wastelands they were dealing with. The Mojave, however, is of a considerably smaller scale than North or South California and the long-map travelling doesn't work quite as well.

As Walpknut also said, NV's gameplay doesn't gel well with random encounters. They were just about meaningful in Fallout 1/2, but in the context of the NV where the Mojave is explored in a much more full and explicitly designed way rather than the barren stretches of California, random encounters come off massively stilted and awkward. As that mod demonstrates.

Personally I think fast travel is overrated anyway, one of my favourite NV playthroughs was with it removed. It made the world feel more alive/real, I had to carefully consider my route (i.e needing to get to Mojave Outpost from Vegas but being not well-equipped enough to brave the Long 15 through Quarry Junction) and it actually helped me RP my character a lot better, carrying out questlines and discovering things felt way more natural as I couldn't just X-Men warp across the map, so I actually had thoughts of "Oh man, I better swing by Camp McCarran and deliver those documents for Crimson Caravan since I'm going to be trekking past it, maybe I'll peak into the Sunset Sarsparilla factory too since it's close by".

If you find it too irritating/inconveniencing, then don't play the "Hardcore" mode.

 

If anything there are probably just too many marked locations throughout NV. Random encounters worked a lot better in Fo3 since it was largely sparse and empty.

 

It is a big leap alright, first, the game offers a solution to the fast travel while over encumbered. Second, nothing prevents the player from dumping some things on the floor or inside a container and fast travel as many times as they want. Third, the game is full of ways to increase the carry weight (like I mentioned before). Fourth, the game offers ways of permanently decrease the weight of items. Fifth, the game offers easy ways of boosting STR so the carry weight increases (unless the character already has 10 STR). Sixth, to implement something like the overworld travel you want, it would take months if not an year or even more than that (the game only had 18 months to be made). Seventh, Bethesda wanted FNV to be similar enough to FO3 that players of one could play the other without problems, so of course it wouldn't allow a totally new map travel mode that would make FO3 look bad.

Like I said, the predecessors do not have over encumbrance, you can only pick objects to a certain limit, then you can't carry anything else. So saying that the solutions suggested were already implemented by the game's predecessors is not true...

So there would be no way Obsidian could implement a better system, not with the time they had and with Bethesda breathing over their shoulders.

 

I have to point out that what players refer to as 'fast travel' is an out-of-game menu option; it's meta-play. The player elects not to sit through the [likely boring and tedious] trip. There is a mod for Morrowind that actually displays trips by silt-strider in real time; it is the very opposite of so-called "fast travel".

The root of this is the "If I don't see it, it didn't happen" mentality. As if seeing a show's protagonist leave the house for work, and then —suddenly— arrive at the office really meant that their commute didn't happen; that they must live across the hallway from work; that they didn't just drive for 30 minutes, because it only took 3 seconds for them to get there!

Consider the The Witcher, when Geralt first leaves Kaer Morhen for Vizima. The game abstracts the long and mostly uneventful trek across the countryside —that has nothing to do with the story— and resumes the game just as he arrives at the outskirts of his destination; just at the moment of a hellhound attack. This is no different in Fallout. The Vault Dweller leaves a settlement, and the game indicates the high-level details of the trip, and resumes when something important happens... like an encounter, or the PC's arrival at a principle location—places that actually matter.

The game Riven is almost entirely about exploration, with a few puzzles. Riven has Zip-Mode, where the player can elect to skip the re-tread to get right to their intended location. This is not some in-game privilege, or tangible benefit in the game, it's a player convenience that is VERY akin to the scene selection menu option on a video player, so that you don't have to sit through the parts that you are not concerned with.

___
For Fallout specifically (but it applies to other games), 'Fast Travel' without accounting for terrain encounters IS an exploit, but this is a lazy design flaw IMO. Fallout used the wasteland as an encounter zone, and there is no reason that FO3 couldn't have done the same. The game already tracks travel time, but FO3 merely teleports the PC to the destination; Oblivion did the same, but is worse because buff spells didn't expire until the end of the trip... meaning that the player could buff the PC's strength, load up with heavy loot, and travel to the other side of the continent with the load. Fallout buffs could expire on the road; and the PC could get mugged on the trip. FO3 should have implemented the same IMO.

A double flaw for an RPG. This forces the player to endure the PC's hardships—when they shouldn't have to, and forces player influence on the PC's avoidance of danger. FO2 had dangerous encounters, but their avoidance relied upon PC skill.

We are talking about a menu-meta-option... and "Fast Travel" only leads to places they have already explored.

*I disagree about the map... I think it would play perfectly; so long as it behaved like the maps in Fallout 1 & 2
Remember the map in Skyrim? Of course they could have had a 3D clone of Fallout's map screen. Their lost advantage was that unlike Fallout, they could have shown the wasteland in abstract or FPP (or TPP/ISO-3D); player's choice.

This is needless masochism. Hardcore mode is not masochism mode, it's a mode with improved consequence; [ for the PC ].

But the PC can still make the trip in realtime; this is why it's absurd. Its only effect is to personally punish the player. The player should be able to indicate that the PC travel to a location and have the PC do their best to get there; set & forget. The game should have the option to resume after the trip, when they arrive; the player picks up when there is something important to do.

*Ideally there should be risk of encounters at any point along the way, so that it's not like warping from place to place. The actual time that it takes for the player (as opposed to the PC) should be immaterial.

This is a great feature, and the first two games had it, but (a big point of contention here)... there is absolutely no need for an in-lore explanation of something that isn't in-game; the PC does not suddenly appear at the destination —they made the trip in person. The player need not have. That's what map travel is for.

*This is why you don't see Indiana Jones sit in a plane for twenty hours.

The setting is a desert. One of the common complaints was that it was too empty—and yet it's a desert; would it be a believable desert if the entire game map was like Vegas itself? The setting is perfect for a map-travel mechanic, for the very reason that the player would not always have to trod back & forth through an empty desert wasteland.

 

I know. I acknowledged that the devs actually put their own solution into the game. But, I still think the solution me and Gizmo offered would've been much better to also elevate New Vegas's quality as an RPG. As it is, like Gizmo said, the way it's implemented seems more like to punish the players directly, instead of indirectly by having the character face the consequence him/herself.

Also, the way I see it the solution provided by the devs (temporary stat boosting, perks, etc etc) seems more like a roundabout way/band-aid solution to the existing problem.

Except I didn't say anything regarding overencumbrance in Fallout 1&2. What I said is that Fallout 1&2 already has:

1. Overworld map travels
2. Caravan-running
3. Outdoorsman skill checks for when getting random encounters during overworld map travels
4. Inventory checks for water flasks for when getting dehydration random encounters

And when I related these to New Vegas, I mean that they definitely could adjust these implementation by

1. Time flies and supplies like food and water consumed as players use a 'fast travel' mechanic, this time the overworld map travels
2. Checks for Survival skill when getting random encounters, because it's the stand-in for Outdoorsman
3. If crippled and/or overencumbered, obviously adjust the time spent in overworld map travel as the consequence for using the feature while in such state(s). Could even put a penalty to Survival skill roll, making it harder to avoid random encounters or harder to gain an upper-hand when push comes to shove
4. If happened to run out of food/water when hungry/thirsty during overworld map travel, instantly stop the travel and force the players to look for food and water nearby

And this here is the thing, we're just discussing the what-ifs. I mean, we get it the first time being told how the mechanics actually behaves in the game in reality. We're only talking about how it could've been better, and this is how.

Anyway, I still think overworld map travel would still works for New Vegas, BUT! Like Gizmo said, it should be restricted only to places you've been to before, to accommodate for far smaller scale of New Vegas's worldmap. Even though I love exploring places in New Vegas just as much as the next guy, I have no love for walking/hiking simulator and backtracking in FPP/TPP. I always, *ALWAYS* use the fast-travel options in NV for when I'm visiting places I've been to before. Heck, I actually use the settlement map of Fallout 1&2 to 'instantly travel' from one end of a town to the other.

Note that I personally haven't experienced Gizmo's personal problem (getting crippled/overencumbered while too far away from a settlement/places with merchants and doctors), or at least I couldn't remember clearly. But I understand his predicament, and who wouldn't daydream of New Vegas being designed to be much, much more faithful to Fallout 1&2? Or at least, be better RPGs than it already is.

 

I no longer have that saved game. It might be that it was just too much weight, and not the crippled leg... I might test this out some time.

Still... The PC can walk to Greensprings from the NCR outpost while over burdened—and it takes longer... Why on Earth not simply make the game clock reflect that when using the map instead of withholding the map option? I don't recall, but I assume that the PC cannot 'fast travel' during combat, as an escape. What's the point of refusing it when there is no conflict?

 

To be honest, I kind of feel like making a thread on the Future Fallout forum about features we'd add to a new Fallout game (if it were done by a magic third party actually good studio independently) where we can hash out this idea and others like it since this thread is veering even further off topic lmfao

 

And here is the problem, you can't separate the over encumbrance from the fast travel/overworld map because the whole problem that originated this discussion was about one not allowing the other. There was nothing about just the travel.

Saying that the predecessors already had better alternatives to the problem (problem here is fast travel while over encumbered) is just not true because the predecessors didn't allow over encumbrance.

 

But I was saying that there's a way to adapt the predecessors system to accommodate the new design decision. It isn't like I was insisting to just outright copy the predecessors system without any adaptation whatsoever.

 

I like New Vegas because it fun and I like the story and companions

 

People only like NV because they too, have been shot or hit on the head. Fo3 is where its at. No frustrating linear storyline that usually forces you to follow the same damn path all the time, you where free to roam where-ever and it wasn't like a instakill killing field with deathclaws or cazadors. +1 for Fo3, the OG 3D fallout experience!

 

You're trying to say FO3 wasn't linear? Are you crazy?

 

Sorry, I should've worded that better. In Fallout 3, you can only side with the BoS, and even if you poison the water supply they still love you for some reason. In Fallout NV, you can side with anyone and everyone that is there, I can see that the world map may be linear on your first playthrough, but you can totally just run directly to Vegas if you want. New Vegas isn't linear in the slightest.

Ok I will stop replying now

 

There is tons of reason to side with Yes man, House, and the Legion. Yes, in a few ways Yes Man is a fall back, he is there as the independent option. But he is nothing like House. This is mainly due to House's intentions. Mr House had huge, vast plans for the waste. Not to mention he has critical opinions and plans for the other factions. Yes Man is sort of a blank slate. Which makes sense as hes programmed to agree with everything. Yes, the legion is a little lacking in quests. But they are not pointless. Once again its about plans, if not Mr House than Caesar is the most intelligent man in the mojave. He is a genius, we can see that through his dialogue. Such as his studying of Hegelian Dialectics and the lessons he has learned from them. Yes, almost every companion will despise you if you side with the legion, this makes sense. The Legion is an organization of slavers after all. Not much people support that.

You say that the world is boring. Debatable. While i will agree that there are some stretches of areas that are a little boring i cant say that the world is boring overall. Fallout New Vegas favors quality or quantity. The Majority of quests and side quests are far more enjoyable than the throwaway quests in Fo3. And even though FNV doesnt favor quantity there is still a plethora of content in it. Tons of quests and locations. Interesting locations. You clearly prefer fo3 over fnv. Yet the exploration in fo3 is SUPER linear. Mounds of rubble block your path and then there is the painful subway system that is just as linear. And by your argument fo1 and 2 must suck cause their worlds are completely barren aside from cities and random encounters.

Your argument of choice and consequence doesnt make sense either. Yeah, maybe there isnt an overwhelming consequence for every single action in the game. This is a good thing, while consequences are good you dont want to outright torture the player. Watch about any analysis on Fallout 3 and it will become prevalent that the game is pretty god damn linear. FNV very clearly has a lot of choice. Megaton is one of the only few quests with actual choice in fo3.

Its the Enclave Remnants, the aftermath of fo2. BOS, side quests and for one of the best fnv characters, Veronica.

I like Dead Money as well. Yes, Honest Hearts doesn't have too much choice. Its basically left or right. But thats not the focus of the dlc. Aside form the great world space you are given some great characters and one of the best written fallout characters period.

OWB is supposed to be a 60's sci fi flic parody. The whole point is that the 60's vibes are off the charts. Definitely not too wacky to be in fallout. In fallout 3 you are abducted by aliens, that dlc completely makes no sense as the lone wanderer is given a fucking spaceship and does nothing with it.

Chris Avellone wrote a lot of dialogue for Ulysses because he was initially going to be a companion. A PRO-LEGION companion. Not doubt that there were going to be legion quests with him. I disagree with your point that it was bad time management, i would argue that their time management was impeccable as they managed to create of game of its scale in just 18 months.

Its not really an opinion that fnv is better than fo3. Its a fact. Writing is miles better in fnv. Fo3 is written by the guy who wrote fo4, which we can all agree had a shit story. The gameplay is better in fnv. There is ironsights. There are more rpg aspects in fnv than fo3. There are better characters in fnv. There is a less linear world in fnv. There is more content in fnv. There is more mods and better mods for fnv. Fnv is better than fo3. it just is. And fallout 2 doesnt suck, you logic is that there is a single flaw with the game so it sucks. You think there are too many pop culture refrences in fo2. So you say it sucks, How does that make sense? it still has an awesome story with a fantastic antagonist.

 

Amazing write-up @Enemy852, especially for your first post (which I assume you made to respond in this thread). Chuglord didn't bother to debate any points past the 1st page of his own thread. You can find the further hilarity of his arguments toward NV through his alt, @BiggumsBoi. (who left after getting assblasted from said stupidity)

 

Thanks. Yeah, i just stumbled upon NMA and saw this post in the forums and was dumbfounded cause it was just an awful argument. Had the urge to respond to it.