Fallout: NV - Editorial @ HardcoreGamer

[Thrasher]

If you're choosing to play NV before 3, then you must get the story DLC, in particular Dead Money, Old World Blues, Honest Hearts, and Lonesome Road. These DLC are the best parts of FO:NV. By best, I mean story, characters, and in some sense exploration and level design.

I myself would have a hard time picking between FO3 and FO:NV. Both are strong on their own merits, as discussed above, and both have some very annoying flaws. I have to say that FO:NV had a much stronger emotional impact on me than FO:3. Some of the stories and NPCs were extremely engaging. That's the sort of stuff I will remember from my playthrough. FO3, not so memorable for the characters and stories, but a little for the visuals.

 

[Drithius]

I actually hated Honest Hearts and Lonesome Road. HH was a cliche` tribal borefest whose only highlight was some sidequest NPC, whereas LR was so painfully linear as to garner comparisons to typically on-rails FPS gameplay.

If everything else was equal (which it is not), I'd still give FNV the nod for Kris Kristofferson!

 

[Sir_Brennus]

FO:NV is the "better" game IMHO, but I am as embarrassed by the fact that I enjoyed playing FO3 as I am embarrassed by the fact that I like McD's burgers.

I actually couldn't stand F3 without the "Retro" mods that are scattered all over the Nexus, but using them I constantly smiled stalking DC (well, except the subway tunnels). But, to be honest, most of FO3 makes no sense at all - the premise, the story, the actions everybody takes and especially the ending.

I tasted good during play, but left no lasting impression or emotional impact, while the ending of FO:NV left me asking myself if I had made the "right" decisions and took the best actions during play. Wonderful.

 

[Thrasher]

I actually hated Honest Hearts and Lonesome Road. HH was a cliche` tribal borefest whose only highlight was some sidequest NPC, whereas LR was so painfully linear as to garner comparisons to typically on-rails FPS gameplay.

Those are my least favorite of the four, but I still found them more interesting than most of the rest of the Mojave!

 

[Gulag]

WOW thanks for so many replies. I think I will go for Fallout NV IF it will be offered during the Christmas Sale... But I kinda count on it.

 

[Deleted User]

I've said it before, but something didn't grab me about F:NV. I mean, the game world itself seemed...I dunno...small. I had only played for maybe 40 hours or so? and I felt like I had seen everything of interest there was to see. I guess the writing was good but I didn't really care for being hunted by the faction you didn't choose. All in all, it was an alright game, but not as great as some people were saying at the time.

Compare the time spent in F:NV to the time I spent in Fallout 3, it was a big difference. I played Fallout 3 a few different times and was amazed at all the things I missed the first time around. So, if I replay either of these games, I will probably start with Fallout 3 first.

 

[CraigCWB]

Bethesda got some things in there I really enjoyed a lot, like the whole slaver and slavery thing, and the subway tunnels, which, for me, made the game world seem a lot bigger than it was. Like the bantering enemy NPCs did with eachother while I was sneaking up on em, too. They got a lot of those little things right. And for some reason, Obsidian decided to opt out of a lot of the sandboxy stuff that was already there. The story in New Vegas is a lot better, though. But in my opinion they're working the choice and consequence thing way the hell too hard, I can't even guess how many times I found myself wondering what the hell I just left FUBAR after behaving in a perfectly normal and perfectly neutral way. Way too much non-consentual drama and I often found myself not making the choices they wanted to force me to make simply because I didn't want to do irrevocable damage to my play-through. Likewise, I felt like I was being railroaded through the story. The sidequests don't really feel like sidequests. They feel like you're supposed to do them, and they feel like you're supposed to do them in order. They feel like they are there to guide you along through the main story line. And both games are batshit crazy with the unstoppable leveling freight train. It's disgusting how fast the player character becomes a god for basically doing nothing, never having faced any real challenges or overcome any truly difficult obstacles. Anyway, overall I'd say New Vegas was the more fun but trying to play it sandbox style is a total bore. Also, hardcore mode was a big improvement. It's impossible to overstate that. Hardcore mode with JSawyer's mod is pretty cool, and if you make your own mod to reduce earned experience by 90% it's even cooler. It's kinda nice to be only level 4 or 5 when you're ten or fifteen hours into the game, instead of pretty close to max. And those effing level lists, why can't the bad men be made to stop doing that? I suspect most people who've played a Bethesda engine game have never even seen most the low level equipment because they are already too high for it to show up in shops or on NPCs by the time they've cleared the first tutorial area.

Anyway, my vote is for New Vegas. But the proper way to do Fallout 3 was an improved version of the Jagged Alliance 2 game engine. That's it. That's what Fallout 3 should have been. It was a no-brainer. A perfect fit. Whoever decided that Fallout 3 needed to be more like a first person shooter should be fed to the zombies.

 

[crpgnut]

Fallout 2 sold 80 copies, Fallout 3 sold 7 milllion copies. I think they made the right decision. Times change

 

[Thrasher]

I've said it before, but something didn't grab me about F:NV. I mean, the game world itself seemed…I dunno…small. I had only played for maybe 40 hours or so? and I felt like I had seen everything of interest there was to see.

Ha! At 40 hours I'd hardly seen anything. But I can tell I am a much more thorough and persistent explorer than you.

 

[joxer]

Fallout 2 sold 80 copies, Fallout 3 sold 7 milllion copies. I think they made the right decision. Times change

Titanic was seen/sold by… They did the right decision. If we're talking about filling pockets by selling junk.
Yeah… Times change. War? War never changes.

 

[Deleted User]

Ha! At 40 hours I'd hardly seen anything. But I can tell I am a much more thorough and persistent explorer than you.

I don't know about that. In most games, I'm very thorough. I usually have to uncover every square inch of the map, remove all fog of war, etc. Maybe that isn't coming through in my TES playthroughs on YouTube, but I'm usually pretty OCD about exploring

That said, I just felt like I had seen all there was to see in that 40-60 hours (I don't remember exactly how long it was). Were there really that many points of interest to find in F:NV? If there were, it didn't feel like it to me. For whatever reason, the world just didn't feel that large at all.

I guess I'll have to play through it again sometime and just explore more. I did kind of stick to the story for the most part.

 

[TomRon]

Fallout 2 sold 80 copies, Fallout 3 sold 7 milllion copies. I think they made the right decision. Times change

That's pretty much like saying every game should be a FPS or a MMO, because they sell more? From a business point if view, perfectly understandable. But from a gamers? Especially the gamers on THIS forum? I wonder how big a percentage here would agree with you it was the right choice…although most of probably enjoyed FO3, it wasn't the game I wished for.

 

[CraigCWB]

Fallout 2 sold 80 copies, Fallout 3 sold 7 milllion copies. I think they made the right decision. Times change

Interplay went out of business while they were trying to make an FPS version of Fallout, and Fallout 3 came out a decade after Fallout 2. Times change? Fallout 2 was a far better game than Elder Scrolls: Daggerfall, which was Bethesda's current offering using their recipe. I've never heard anyone claim otherwise. Also, wasn't one of the best games of last year one that used a dated turn based tactical overhead view engine? I'm pretty sure XCOM sold a lot fewer copies than Fallout 2 did. In any case, there wasn't any decision for Bethesda to make... they only knew how to make an Elder Scrolls game so Fallout 3 became Elder Scrolls with guns. They had a chance to broaden their horizons and add a different type of game to their lineup. They declined. Not very progressive of them, is it? They've been stuck in a rut since 1992, maybe somebody ought to tell them about the times, they are a changing?

 

[Thrasher]

I don't know about that. In most games, I'm very thorough. I usually have to uncover every square inch of the map, remove all fog of war, etc. Maybe that isn't coming through in my TES playthroughs on YouTube, but I'm usually pretty OCD about exploring

That said, I just felt like I had seen all there was to see in that 40-60 hours (I don't remember exactly how long it was). Were there really that many points of interest to find in F:NV? If there were, it didn't feel like it to me. For whatever reason, the world just didn't feel that large at all.

I guess I'll have to play through it again sometime and just explore more. I did kind of stick to the story for the most part.

If you just stick to the main story, that's only about 20% of the content, I'd say. Half that again or less if you add in the DLC.

 

[Deleted User]

If you just stick to the main story, that's only about 20% of the content, I'd say. Half that again or less if you add in the DLC.

Wow. Good to know. I obviously missed more than I thought, then. I'll keep that in mind for the next playthrough.

 

[crpgnut]

I was baiting the Bethesda bashers and it worked; like always. Knew they'd have to jump in and defend Fallout 2, even though most of them probably never bought it at release

I do follow the money. Always. You could follow Torrents if you prefer. Daggerfall has been torrented about 20 times as much as Fallout 2. Okay, I made that up. I have no idea

 

[Thrasher]

That said there is a LOT of empty space in the Mojave. Density of locations picks up around Vegas proper.

 

[CraigCWB]

I was baiting the Bethesda bashers and it worked; like always. Knew they'd have to jump in and defend Fallout 2, even though most of them probably never bought it at release

I'm not a Bethesda basher, and I did buy Fallout 2 at release. Fallout 1, as well. Discussed both extensively on usenet, including with some of the devs, who used to hang out on usenet, back then. You're wrong twice, and I'm right twice.

I do follow the money. Always. You could follow Torrents if you prefer. Daggerfall has been torrented about 20 times as much as Fallout 2. Okay, I made that up. I have no idea

That makes you wrong three times. Doubling down on stupid wasn't enough for you? And here you are, talking about following the money? If you were a stock broker you'd have jumped out of a window back in 2008. Maybe I'll get banned for my rudeness, as has happened before, but I don't care. You're being aggressively obtuse and somebody needs to point that out.

 

[Pessimeister]

Hmm. I've expressed my impassioned opinion on this matter numerous times. I guess one more can't help.

There's no competition for me. New Vegas is much closer in conceptual spirit to the original Fallout games than Fallout 3, which is a virtue that goes a long way for me. Add the much superior writing, (F3 was just plain awful) more relevancy and respect to established canon, greater choices and consequences and thus better role-playing options, more fleshed out companions, better DLC etc and I really can't see any argument that a Fallout 3 apologist can have that isn't graphically related.

To be succint: The heart and soul of FNV was just much more...Fallouty.

I've put in over 200 hours into New Vegas since its release and still have one more DLC to experience. That in itself is a credit to the game's longevity.

 

[Gulag]

FO:NV is the "better" game IMHO, but I am as embarrassed by the fact that I enjoyed playing FO3 as I am embarrassed by the fact that I like McD's burgers.

I actually couldn't stand F3 without the "Retro" mods that are scattered all over the Nexus, but using them I constantly smiled stalking DC (well, except the subway tunnels). But, to be honest, most of FO3 makes no sense at all - the premise, the story, the actions everybody takes and especially the ending.

I tasted good during play, but left no lasting impression or emotional impact, while the ending of FO:NV left me asking myself if I had made the "right" decisions and took the best actions during play. Wonderful.

Ok in that case I will skip FO3 and start with NV. Thank you Folks very much for sharing your opinions!