Why do people think New Vegas was actually good?

[Norzan]

There could be a standards that bugs are more desirable (stupid, I know, but bear with me), there could be a standard that if a game has a single bug then it is by nature "bad." Does that make either of these statements "objectively correct" no, because again, standards are set by a group or society of people dealing with matters of qualitative dealings.

Standards don't matter one bit when it comes to actual quality, what matters is proof that something works better than something else. Bugs are a bad thing regardless if someone is fine with them, they are unintentional by design. So yes, objectivity exists and it has to exist or else things don't improve. Without objectivity, how the hell do things get better? When it comes to games, how to things like cameras, combat system, overall movement and so on get better with time? Objectivity has to exist for these things to get better.

Are you seriously gonna claim stuff like The Room aren't objectively badly made? You can't because it is badly made. There's no point of view where you can look at it and say anything works. In fact, it only got popular because how bad it was. Same with Ride To Hell Retribution, these properties are broken at their core.

I beta test for a game and even the devs say some objectivity has to exist for the game to be made better.

 

[Aurelius Of Phoenix]

To quote my previous post, "It may be objectively true that a game may has bugs, however to make a qualitative statement upon said fact is not objective, because you cannot be objective in qualitative dealings. Person A may just as easily say "bugs are good" and as such that game would be more valuable to Person A's tastes, how are we to say Person A is objectively wrong and they are irrational for believing this subjective belief?" While yes your statement may be true, that still doesn't make a qualitative objective statement, because in this instance you have to treat bugs as objectively wrong in this instance, and not as an objective truth that you use to reach a subjective conclusion upon the quality of a product, we could take our hypothetical scenario of a societal standard of "bugs being good" (admittedly unrealistic but I'm using it for example) would make Fallout 2 and New Vegas being superior products. Just because there is a consensus of bugs doesn't imply objective validity, that's the trap you are falling into with this debate. Your own final claim on the matter is false because "stable" in and of itself isn't inherently objective.

If a game has a plethora of bugs that affect the experience then the game objectively has technical faults.

Uh, yeah, that's the entire point of this discussion, unless you are deliberately meaning "objective" under your own definition which is a reframing of what objectivity means.

Objective
1a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective

based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/objective

The games Fallout 2 and NV are far more buggier than Fallout 1 = Fallout 1 is the most technically stable of the three.

The games Fallout 2 and NV have a number of themes and narrative that doesn't tie back into the major themes of the work compared to Fallout 1 which has a more focused story and many side narratives tie back in to the major themes of the work = Fallout 1 is the more focused narrative experience between the 3.

 

[ResetRPG]

Standards don't matter one bit when it comes to actual quality, what matters is proof that something works better than something else.

Standards are the methodology you use to critique games, they are not assessed in a vacuum and as such it is impossible to critique them. Video games are a product of culture and as such will be critiqued under your own societal standards that you have come to adopt.

Bugs are a bad thing regardless if someone is fine with them, they are unintentional by design.

Whether they are unintentional or not (Goat Simulator specifically leaves bugs because the developer views it as improving the experience) is irrelevant to the discussion of objectivity because the developer isn't the arbiter of how a piece of media should be viewed.

So yes, objectivity exists and it has to exist or else things don't improve.

Ironic that you say this because what improved, and what's worse is also an entirely subjective topic. I don't think you would see the stretching out of games with fetch quests is "improvement." What is improved is again based upon how you view media.

Without objectivity, how the hell do things get better?

Because it doesn't. Objectivity is based upon unchanging statement of facts, whereas what is quality is based around a consumer's own feelings upon products. What is "good" or not is still dependent upon the subjective quality of measurement by which you relate them to.

When it comes to games, how to things like cameras, combat system, overall movement and so on get better with time?

Refer to previous comment. Just because there is a clear and dominant consensus around a piece of media doesn't make said consensus "objective."

You guys are clearly misguided in what "objectivity" exactly is. Objectivity is not something you can use to critique something because what is quality and what isn't is by nature is subjective. Objectivity by nature concerns with the natural world and what exists in the natural world as a statement of fact, and not a statement of quality regarding those facts. If I say "2+2=4 is stupid" that is subjectively correct given my feelings on this natural law, however it does not negate the Objective reality of Value being 2+2=4.

 

[ResetRPG]

Objective
1a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective

based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/objective

It's almost as if critiques are expressions of personal feelings and opinions??? Which is the entire reasoning behind objective critiques being an oxymoronic statement in and of itself??? You have quite literally dunked on yourself by citing this.

 

[ResetRPG]

I beta test for a game and even the devs say some objectivity has to exist for the game to be made better.

Depends on what said Developers are calling "objective" in this instance.

Let's say I'm analyzing a musical score and we have a I-vi-iv progression in a piece of music.

An objective statement would be "this piece of music contains a I-vi-iv progression."

A subjective statement would include "This piece should've contained a ii-V-i progression to be more evocative." let's say

This entire argument isn't to say that all games should be released with a ton of bugs and plot holes, because most of us would say that it is a "bad" thing given the standards by which we rate games, and companies should adhere to those standards because, well, 1. You won't sell a lot of copies by not doing so since people tend to common consensus. 2. The fact that it's socially constructed doesn't mean that is isn't important. For example, Fiat currency and the stability of the market system is a social construct, yet it completely dictates our lives, and if we got rid of the system tomorrow, the natural scientific world will not change, 2+2 will still =4, but the entirety of human civilization will crumble because we have no way to exchange goods and services, important products will fail to be created because there is no incentive to create it, the entire world will come to a screeching halt.

 

[Morgan_]

Damn, Reset with that big brain right now.

 

[ResetRPG]

Damn, Reset with that big brain right now.
View attachment 17567

I'm tuckered out, so even if they reply to it I'm not gonna continue it, plus I gotta wage slave lol.

 

[Aurelius Of Phoenix]

It's almost as if critiques are expressions of personal feelings and opinions??? Which is the entire reasoning behind objective critiques being an oxymoronic statement in and of itself??? You have quite literally dunked on yourself by citing this.

I used 'objective critique' because that was the term you used, bro. A critique is to give criticism on something, the points can be either subjective or objective. If I felt the subject of a game was too gruesome that would be subjective, If I were to say that a game has many technical faults that is objective. You can judge things objectively, free of bias, and determine a positive or negative decision from that.

 

[ResetRPG]

I used 'objective critique' because that was the term you used, bro.

I used the term "objective critique" to further make a point as to why it's oxymoronic. You are the ones who are calling for objectivity in reviews here.

When you state that Fallout 1 is "objectively better" you are also making a tacit statement that says "anyone who does not believe this is simply rejecting the reality of the natural world."

That is an absolutely absurd claim to make.

 

[Aurelius Of Phoenix]

That is an absolutely absurd claim to make.

No, I can make that claim and have substantiated it with the two points I have given, you haven't bothered to disprove these points but instead dragged it into the subject of objective v. subjective. So you can either disprove my claims or point out in what ways Fallout 2 or NV are better.

 

[ResetRPG]

No, I can make that claim and substantiated it with the two points I have given, you haven't bothered to disprove this point but instead dragged it into the subject of objective v. subjective.

You're moving goalposts. I changed it into "objective vs subjective" because you completely misused the term "objective" given the context.

Even if we do take into account that Fallout 2 has bugs and the story is more focused, that doesn't prove your point about "Fallout 1" being objectively better because that is a quality assessment based upon your own personal valuing of or that you used the term "objectively" correct, because let's get rid of all the hypotheticals and view our standard criteria that we judge games on, as the objective measurement, there is SIGNIFICANTLY more to a video game than bugs and plot line.

You are quite literally making up an argument with me that I was not having with you and acting like I'm the bad guy when from the get go I was arguing objective vs subjective.

If I was arguing you on said topic I would not be bringing up your misusage of basic vocabulary and principles of logical thinking, I would bring up my view in the sense that "Despite Fallout 2 having more bugs and a less focused narrative, it is able to overcome this weakness by X Y Z."

You still don't know what "objectivity" is, and this comment confirms it.

And no, I will not go onto have a debate between Fallout 2, NV, or 1, because you have already accepted that my own view is contradictory to the reality of the natural world, and not that I have come to a different qualitative conclusion than you based upon how I perceive the quality of Video Games, and as such it will be an extremely unproductive conversation that will leave us both feeling annoyed.

 

[Aurelius Of Phoenix]

You are quite literally making up an argument with me that I was not having with you and acting like I'm the bad guy when from the get go I was arguing objective vs subjective.

If I was calling you the bad guy I would have just called you a faggot and been on my way. I said that the thread was on one topic and now it has gone to another topic, I don't remember making any judgmental statement towards you.

because in this instance you have to treat bugs as objectively wrong in this instance

A bug in a game is inherently a flaw in the product as it changes the experience of the game when it was not the developers intention.

SIGNIFICANTLY more to a video game than bugs and plot line.

For a role-playing game their can be several points that are important to a game, I believe that a game being a buggy piece of shit would say something to the technical quality of the product, the writing and plot line to a game, an rpg no less is important as well and if that plot fails to properly make sense or carry across its theme(s) I would say that is a flaw, sure there's more than that but I would think that those two points are important.

Even if we do take into account that Fallout 2 has bugs and the story is more focused, that doesn't prove your point about "Fallout 1" being objectively better because that is a quality assessment based upon your own personal valuing of or that you used the term "objectively" correct

My claim was that Fallout 1 was objectively better than Fallout 2 and NV because: Fallout 1 has better writing (which I later clarified it to be a tighter and more focused affair) and could work without mods (Fallout 2 and NV are notoriously buggy with more than HAHA funny bugs).

You still don't know what "objectivity" is, and this comment confirms it.

I'm sorry, Amigo... I'll try to be better in the future.

 

[Morgan_]

All edgy boys know how to do today is lie and eat hot chip.

 

[ResetRPG]

All edgy boys know how to do today is lie and eat hot chip.

Had a reply in the works, but I deleted it, the argument has gone on for too long and is getting nothing done.

 

[Jogre]

There are objective measures to evaluate anything including art. But the experience you have with art is vastly different from everyone else because of who you are, your life experiences, your previous art experiences, etc.

"Objective" definitionally means it can't be shaped by personal taste, opinion or feeling. So to a certain extent, you can only "objectively" measure art in so far as you can state facts about it. Ultimately this comes down to the Is/Ought gap. You can't derive a statement about how something SHOULD be from statements about how it IS. Ought is inherently dependent on a subject with personal judgements, Is is not.

"Fallout New Vegas has a significant amount of bugs due to a limited timeframe" is a statement of fact
"It is bad that Fallout New Vegas has bugs" is a statement of personal judgement, since it is a claim of how something SHOULD be, "New Vegas should not be like this", which is inherently requires a subject capable of reaching judgements. If there were no people but New Vegas still existed, nobody would be able to say that the bugs take away from the experience, since there would be no experience.

Now you might say "Well there are certain standards which human beings find aesthetically appealing" or "There are certain established norms that art follows", and even though I'd have my own criticisms of those ideas, even if we accept them as 100% true, that would still make art standards only Intersubjective (I.E Subjective, but shared among people rather than being atomised and individualistic).

Since "Good" and "Bad" are judgements, and judgements necessarily need a judge to make them, they can't IMO be objective. Objectivity requires the facts to be exactly the same even if there are no humans around to measure them. Good and Bad can't exist without humans.

Without objectivity, how the hell do things get better? When it comes to games, how to things like cameras, combat system, overall movement and so on get better with time?

Because they feel better and more intuitive for the vast majority of people to use.

It still requires People to see those combat and movement systems and say "Yeah this is easier to use than this one" or "The flow of this one feels much more intuitive".

If those things were objective, it would mean necessarily there would have to be no personal judgement involved whatsoever. Saying "The Combat System got better" is reliant on someone playing the game, and deciding it feels better to use.

Saying "This combat system works this way" would be objective, saying "It is therefore better" relies on it feeling better for people, and if it's reliant on how it feels to people, then definitionally it is Subjective as to whether it's getting better or not.

That said, as I've said above: if something's agreed upon by most subjects it's generally considered to be Intersubjective as it's shared between people but still requires a person to come to that judgement.

 

[KingArthur]

@Jogre the way you capitalized and italicized “people” made me think you meant People Magazine at first and I was very confused

 

[TheodoreRoosevelt]

Title says it all.
Just finished playing New Vegas up to OWB. Have finished the game without any DLC before this though.
New Vegas is really bad. There's no point in siding with Yes Man or House or the Legion. Yes Man is just a fallback if you were a smooth-brain and failed every other faction's quests. House is almost exactly the same as Yes Man. The Legion would be worth it if it wasn't so lacking in quests and companions. Almost every single companion will despise you unless you choose NCR. Not to mention there's more NCR content than any other faction.
Besides that, the world is very boring. Despite having a more locations than Fallout 3, New Vegas feels a LOT more empty.
And, unlike in 3, if you kill someone who has a lead on Benny, there's always a fallback. No consequence for killing Manny Vargas or Beagle. In 3, if you nuked Megaton, you would fail the main quest and get a new one without any quest markers. Why doesn't that happen in New Vegas?
And why are the Enclave and BoS in this game? They almost never play a significant role in the story. They feel like they were shoehorned in there.
The only part I *really* enjoyed from New Vegas was Dead Money. It was really well done. Probably because less people made the story. Too many cooks in the kitchen and all that.
Honest Hearts was just OK. Though there was not a lot of choice and a lot of scripted events.
Old World Blues was the stinkiest shit I've ever sniffed though. I've seen a lot of complaints about Bethesda's Fallout being "le wacky 60s themed nuke game", but OWB fits that bill exactly. It feels like an episode of Rick and Morty. It's just too wacky to be in Fallout.
Some people say that all of New Vegas's faults is because of it's 18 month development cycle but I don't really think that's much of a problem.
The real problem is Obsidian's AWFUL time management. IIRC, Chris Avellone wrote millions of lines of dialogue for Ulysses but he never made it into the base game. Why focus on writing this character when you could write some good Pro-Legion quests to make them actually worthwhile? Why? You could be focusing on much more crucial things than Mr. Bull and Bear dude.
In my honest opinion, this game is complete and utter garbage.

I believe only 2 companions would despise you if you sided with the legion Arcade and Boone. the others don't seem to care.

There's plenty of Legion Content and NCR Content i would argue. Though Legion quests could be expanded upon i recommend this mod if you want more legion quests: https://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/60208

Mr. House and Yes man are similar only because Yes Man you are basically taking Mr. House's plan and modifying it for your own purpose.

Yes Man is not just a fallback. But a full fledge quest that allows you to determine the future of various factions in the mojave. Brotherhood of Steel, Followers of the apocalypse, boomers, great khans, white gloves, omertas, etc.

seems rather nitpicking to mention the fallbacks on fallout nv's main quest but okay i'll bite they didn't want to have players not know where to to finish part of the main quest. fallout 3 basically tells you always where to go always no killing certain npcs who are essential etc. The only exception is if you blow up megaton prior to figuring our where your dad went after megaton. The game doesn't even explicitly tell you your dad went to megaton anyway but points you too it with it's "compass marker" in new vegas the characters clearly tell you that your attackers went south toward primm then later beagle will tell you they went south towards nipton then west towards novac then boulder city etc. Fallout 3 handholds you way more then Fallout NV imo.

BoS and Enclave are in there because they make sense. where would the enclave go once they their military bases have been blown up and defeated? It shows how they re-integrated into normal post apocalyptic society. BoS is there because they were searching for technology most likely hoover dam however the NCR got their first before they could as they stopped at helios one originally with elijah before they could even reach hoover dam.

that can be your opinion. i don't agree with calling fallout 3 or 4 garbage either but fallout new vegas definitely is far from being complete and utter garbage as you put it.

 

[Sicknessoverload]

So, I think Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas (I can't speak for 1,2, and Tactics but I saw in 2 that you can use a Star Trek Phaser which really makes me want to play it. I bought 1 but haven't played it yet, I need my charger lol.)

So, the main quest in 3 is much more fun to play, New Vegas' main quest is boring, it takes forever getting to New Vegas and when you finally deal with Benny you either deal with the Boomers or do the Securitrons Upgrade which neither quest is fun. (Keep in mind, in Fallout 3 you'd be doing Vault 87) After Nellis, each faction differs in what you have to do but none of their quests are that great (I always skip the Strip quests because they're fucking boring) but it all ends at Hoover Dam which is a great finale it's awesome to see all of your hard work pays off if you did the quests and dealing with Lanius is much better than y o u a g a i n and following Prime to the purifier.

Unfortunately New Vegas' DLCS aren't that great it starts off extremely strong with Dead Money (Best DLC by far) Honest Hearts (Good story, shit gameplay) OWB (Fucking garbage, the opening dialogue is way too much, the dialogue itself is juvenile, and you do the high school part like 5 times! I did like the twist at the end where Mobius isn't actually evil and the characters in the Sink are unique and fun to talk to.) Then it ends with Lonesome Road which I loved when I first played it but I just went through it a few weeks ago and I don't like it as much as I used too. I had more trouble with satchel charges than the deathclaws. The dialogue with Ulysses can be a bit much but it's not as bad as the Think Tank and the boss fight with Ulysses was a let down it was really easy but I did enjoy that he could be talked down like Lanius.

Compared to Fallout 3 in which the DLC are all average and not as polarizing. Except Point Lookout. Fuck Point Lookout.

So, while I like New Vegas, it isn't as good as 3. I'm interested to hear your replies, have a good night and a pleasant tomorrow.

 

[RangerBoo]

So, I think Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas (I can't speak for 1,2, and Tactics but I saw in 2 that you can use a Star Trek Phaser which really makes me want to play it. I bought 1 but haven't played it yet, I need my charger lol.)

This will explain a lot.

So, the main quest in 3 is much more fun to play, New Vegas' main quest is boring, it takes forever getting to New Vegas and when you finally deal with Benny you either deal with the Boomers or do the Securitrons Upgrade which neither quest is fun. (Keep in mind, in Fallout 3 you'd be doing Vault 87) After Nellis, each faction differs in what you have to do but none of their quests are that great (I always skip the Strip quests because they're fucking boring) but it all ends at Hoover Dam which is a great finale it's awesome to see all of your hard work pays off if you did the quests and dealing with Lanius is much better than y o u a g a i n and following Prime to the purifier.

Yes because dealing with a Vault full of orcs that is a rehash of Mariposa is so much more better the a actual quest that has build up. I get the feeling that you prefer pop-a-mole then actual RPG elements.

Compared to Fallout 3 in which the DLC are all average and not as polarizing. Except Point Lookout. Fuck Point Lookout.

Two words, Mothershit Zeta. How the fuck can you think this DLC isn't polarizing when Bethesda tried to retcon fucking aliens being the cause of the Great War? You damn well know that Bethesda is going to shoehorn this into being canon as Bethesda, like many Western devs, want that sweet sweet Chinese commie gold and having the Chinese be one of the causes for the Great War won't sit well with the CCP as they can do no wrong.

 

[Sicknessoverload]

Two words, Mothershit Zeta. How the fuck can you think this DLC isn't polarizing when Bethesda tried to retcon fucking aliens being the cause of the Great War? You damn well know that Bethesda is going to shoehorn this into being canon as Bethesda, like many Western devs, want that sweet sweet Chinese commie gold and having the Chinese be one of the causes for the Great War won't sit well with the CCP as they can do no wrong.

Aliens causing the Great War makes more sense than China or America. And it seems more like a bug than canon content. I liked Zeta, it has a good haul and was fun to play for me. I know it isn't for everyone and it a little linear but I enjoyed it for what it was. I didn't see your part about Vault 87 before, but you'd rather do the Nellis quests over that?