Why do people think New Vegas was actually good?

Sicknessoverload said:
I suppose you're right, the only morally grey option is The Pitt and that's dlc.
Click to expand...

Bethesda does what Josh Sawyer refers to as the "Sophie's Choice" version of grey morality where they present you with two equally shitty options that make you want to not pick at all and escape the situation, rather than morality based on individual perspective.
 
Atomic Postman said:
Bethesda does what Josh Sawyer refers to as the "Sophie's Choice" version of grey morality where they present you with two equally shitty options that make you want to not pick at all and escape the situation, rather than morality based on individual perspective.
Click to expand...
Not really, I quickly chose siding with the slavers because in the end it was the better choice.
 
Sicknessoverload said:
Not really, I quickly chose siding with the slavers because in the end it was the better choice.
Click to expand...

Different strokes but I found myself wanting to leave. My character couldn't abide by slavery but the other option was bad, by involving himself he already felt tainted by the whole thing. I just wanted to leave.
 
Atomic Postman said:
Different strokes but I found myself wanting to leave. My character couldn't abide by slavery but the other option was bad, by involving himself he already felt tainted by the whole thing. I just wanted to leave.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, getting all the steel ingots can make anyone want to get the fuck of out of dodge.
 
RangerBoo said:
That is my reputation on this site. @Crni Vuk affectionately referred to me as a female Ted Nugget once. Once my aggression is put down I am not that bad... :ugly:
Click to expand...
To be fair, forums tend usually to show the extrems of us. A lot of nuance is lost that usually happens in discussions where you see people eye to eye.

But you are still crazy :D.
 
Sicknessoverload said:
Letting slavery happen knowing you could stop it so they can eventually make a cure to the Pitt plague is morally grey choice because you're supporting slavery.
Click to expand...


It is morally grey but it's also pretty obviously repugnant to the point it's off-putting. Its less a matter of perspective and more "pick your poison".

I wouldn't say it's a bad way to handle grey morality at all but it's the most basic type.


Crni Vuk said:
To be fair, forums tend usually to show the extrems of us. A lot of nuance is lost that usually happens in discussions where you see people eye to eye.

But you are still crazy :D.
Click to expand...

I can also confirm rangerboo is pretty wild
 
Sicknessoverload said:
Letting slavery happen knowing you could stop it so they can eventually make a cure to the Pitt plague is morally grey choice because you're supporting slavery.
Click to expand...
No, it's a shitty choice, not morally grey. Morally grey choices are choices with upsides but also downsides. Letting the slavery happen that in the future so that you might stop slavery to allow a cure to be made? No.

If you had to allow slavery so that they would hand you the cure right there or you bargain with them to make the cure to allow slavery, that might have been morally grey. But the possibility of a cure after you might stop slavery? That's a shitty choice.
 
Norzan said:
No, it's a shitty choice, not morally grey. Morally grey choices are choices with upsides but also downsides. Letting the slavery happen that in the future so that you might stop slavery to allow a cure to be made? No.

If you had to allow slavery so that they would hand you the cure right there or you bargain with them to make the cure to allow slavery, that might have been morally grey. But the possibility of a cure after you might stop slavery? That's a shitty choice.
Click to expand...
The upside is there will eventually be a cure, the downside is that slavery is being used to ascertain it.
 
I felt OWB was the best overall dlc. Dead Money had good story, but was terrible to play. Game design couldn't keep up with the narrative.

Edit: Arkane studios could make a great game out of Dead money.
 
Morgan_ said:
I felt OWB was the best overall dlc. Dead Money had good story, but was terrible to play. Game design couldn't keep up with the narrative.
Click to expand...

One of the many things that makes me dream of NV on a good engine that could do the premise justice. Dead Money that plays like actual survivor horror rather than a jank imitation would probably be my favourite Fallout thing ever.
 
Sicknessoverload said:
Letting slavery happen knowing you could stop it so they can eventually make a cure to the Pitt plague is morally grey choice because you're supporting slavery.
Click to expand...
When you explain it like that I have to say it's not as "moraly ambigious" as it seems. Really, this is nothing new and has actually historical examples in real life. Concentration camps and the medical testing which happend there. But it also happend in the Soviet Union and some Gulags.

Is it acceptable to let some people suffer when you can get a cure or medical knowledge that could cure people? And the overwhelming majority of medical experts says cleary, no it isn't.

Bethesda really does suck when it comes to "choices". Because to them it's all binary. It requires good writing. And that's something they simply lack. When you really look at it "moraly grey" choices doesn't come from putting the player in a place where he HAS to make a choice. It actually comes from the characters you encounter. Want a good example? Mr. House and the NCR. I prefer the NCR, but I can see where house is coming from. He's not evil and the NCR is not goodö. They represent view points. Ideas how New Vegas should be ruled. It's the interaction with the charaters here which makes it moraly grey. You either agree or disagree with them. But you can not say that House has less claim over Vegas than the NCR. Or that the NCR has no right to be there. Even House sees the need to have them as trading partners for example. And this is how you crate some moral ambiguity. By creating debth and have some decent writing.
 
Crni Vuk said:
When you explain it like that I have to say it's not as "moraly ambigious" as it seems. Really, this is nothing new and has actually historical examples in real life. Concentration camps and the medical testing which happend there. But it also happend in the Soviet Union and some Gulags.

Is it acceptable to let some people suffer when you can get a cure or medical knowledge that could cure people? And the overwhelming majority of medical experts says cleary, no it isn't.

Bethesda really does suck when it comes to "choices". Because to them it's all binary. It requires good writing. And that's something they simply lack. When you really look at it "moraly grey" choices doesn't come from putting the player in a place where he HAS to make a choice. It actually comes from the characters you encounter. Want a good example? Mr. House and the NCR. I prefer the NCR, but I can see where house is coming from. He's not evil and the NCR is not goodö. They represent view points. Ideas how New Vegas should be ruled. It's the interaction with the charaters here which makes it moraly grey. You either agree or disagree with them. But you can not say that House has less claim over Vegas than the NCR. Or that the NCR has no right to be there. Even House sees the need to have them as trading partners for example. And this is how you crate some moral ambiguity. By creating debth and have some decent writing.
Click to expand...
That's not grey morality. The NCR has no jurisdiction in Vegas, it's House's city.
 
They have an embassey there and settlers. I am not necessarily talking about a military presence. Even after House "wins" he still keeps a relation with the NCR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top