Wastelander75 of Enthusiacs posted a new retrospective for Fallout: NV. After reading the article why not vote on our latest poll for the best Fallout game.
More information.
Fallout: NV - Retrospective @ Enthusiacs
- Thread starter Couchpotato
- Start date
What is so beautiful about Fallout - and really, about Elder Scrolls as well - is that feeling you get the first time you play it. You really are alone in this open (and in the case of Fallout, VERY dangerous) world. Where do you go? Where will you sleep at night? Will you be safe?
F:NV was my first Fallout game, and it left a deep mark on me because of that immersion. It makes you believe in a way few other games do. Most games are just games. For a while, when you first play F:NV, it's not a game. You're there, and you're actually pretty scared.
If it can do that, then it succeeds, despite any flaws it might have.
F:NV was my first Fallout game, and it left a deep mark on me because of that immersion. It makes you believe in a way few other games do. Most games are just games. For a while, when you first play F:NV, it's not a game. You're there, and you're actually pretty scared.
If it can do that, then it succeeds, despite any flaws it might have.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
I'd agree with most of that, if not the score or several of the minor conclusions. For instance, the world is dull and boring not because they're reusing assets from FO3 - but because they suck at doing interesting worlds. Also, the open world feeling was not expanded, it was reduced from FO3.
Other than that, it's true that the writing and mechanics were superior. That said, neither FO3 or NV had satisfying mechanics in vanilla versions. You still need mods to make them satisfying in that way.
For exploration, FO3 far exceeds NV - and not just because it looks better.
Other than that, it's true that the writing and mechanics were superior. That said, neither FO3 or NV had satisfying mechanics in vanilla versions. You still need mods to make them satisfying in that way.
For exploration, FO3 far exceeds NV - and not just because it looks better.
I'd actually argue that New Vegas exploration is far more relevant to the core Fallout experience established by the first two games. There are little stories within stories to be found within the many locations, many of which are somehow connected with the original games. For me, this sense of continuity and indeed the superior role-playing opportunities and quality of writing as compared to F3, makes New Vegas more satisfying to explore. But as we like to say, each to their own of course. 
D
DArtagnan
Guest
I'd actually argue that New Vegas exploration is far more relevant to the core Fallout experience established by the first two games. There are little stories within stories to be found within the many locations, many of which are somehow connected with the original games. For me, this sense of continuity and indeed the superior role-playing opportunities and quality of writing as compared to F3, makes New Vegas more satisfying to explore. But as we like to say, each to their own of course.
I've only played the first Fallout extensively. I never played FO3 looking for a story-oriented connection to past games, so that had no value for me.
In terms of sheer amount of places to explore, each with little bits and pieces of story - primarily through terminals and audio logs - it made for an extremely satisfying exploration experience. Not to mention a significantly more polished visual experience.
I've played FO:NV all the way to New Vegas and perhaps 10-15 hours more after reaching it - and I struggled to find much of interest beyond the obvious linear and beaten path. The prison and the rocket facility are the only ones that come to mind.
FO3 had such places all over and I never had to search much to find them.
So, indeed, to each his own
ChaosTheory
Virtual Reality Hero
How can you say that running through subway tunnels to get everywhere in FO3 exceeds exploration found in NV? Half the game was basically a corridor shooter.
Drithius
Magic & Loss
Among its other faults, the problem with FO3's content is that it is all compartmentalized - practically none of the locations are tied into one another. Although the small stories told within these locations can sometimes be intriguing, you are rarely presented with anything connecting them together, leading to a shopping list of locations to visit with no context beyond the exit door.
Last edited:
Drithius
Magic & Loss
I thought you were talking about Skyrim.
I edited out my "any Bethesda game" comment to keep the Darts at bay.:lol:
It's pretty much the same engine.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
That's because the subway tunnels aren't the interesting locations I'm talking about. That said, I prefer subway tunnels to endless brown with floating meshes all over the place.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
To each his own. I thought the stories and subquests in the unique locations you find through exploration much more interesting than those in FO3. Not to mention the much better DLCs.
Also, the special areas had their own quest lines with tie-ins to the main quests and companion quests. Great stuff!
Also, the special areas had their own quest lines with tie-ins to the main quests and companion quests. Great stuff!
Last edited:
LOL another FO3 vs NV thread.
True that the FO3 world wasn't deeply connected with a good or much of a storyline but it didn't matter to me. The game succeeds brilliantly as an immersive world, especially when modded. The subterranean areas are a blast for me as I'm a huge fan of old school dungeon crawler games. Is there a better modern dungeon crawler than FO3?
NV is a much better narrative driven game. But it's not a better game, to me. But I need to replay NV in the style it's meant to be played - following the quests and storylines. In that regard, it's less of a sandbox game I guess.
True that the FO3 world wasn't deeply connected with a good or much of a storyline but it didn't matter to me. The game succeeds brilliantly as an immersive world, especially when modded. The subterranean areas are a blast for me as I'm a huge fan of old school dungeon crawler games. Is there a better modern dungeon crawler than FO3?
NV is a much better narrative driven game. But it's not a better game, to me. But I need to replay NV in the style it's meant to be played - following the quests and storylines. In that regard, it's less of a sandbox game I guess.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 381
T
Toff
Guest
The Moria expansion for Lords of the Ring Online is friggin' awesome. Turbine did an excellent job with it.
I'm like you, I love a good dungeon crawl.
The Fallout universe is a canvas to play on. The place is the single strangest gameworld I have ever played in. That is why I don't hold the lack of cohesion of the locations in F3 against it. In fact, it works as a strength instead of a weakness. It is played serious enough for how outrageous the whole thing is, and Bethesda used every opportunity to explore some far-out scenario, and that disconnectedness of the locations allowed for more interesting stuff more often.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2007
- Messages
- 278
Everything you mentioned made the game great. It has been over three hundred years since the Fallout. The world is slowing building itself back together.
Game Timeline - http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline
I'm waiting for the next world war as war never changes.
SpoonFULL
SasqWatch
There seems to be are two major aspects to the new Fallout games: exploration and story telling. Fallout 3 (and Skyrim) is good at exploration with varied and well designed locations, while NV had strong stories that are all well threaded within the game world and NPCs.
Which of the two aspects one prefers will dominate their view of whether they like FO3 more than F:NV or vice versa.
I personally prefer the interesting stories in F:NV, because not only did Obsidian succeeded in producing an interesting world and memorable NPCs, they also included survival aspects and strong faction dependence to make a more believable world.
Which of the two aspects one prefers will dominate their view of whether they like FO3 more than F:NV or vice versa.
I personally prefer the interesting stories in F:NV, because not only did Obsidian succeeded in producing an interesting world and memorable NPCs, they also included survival aspects and strong faction dependence to make a more believable world.
That´s well said, though I think there´s another perspective worth consideration - to some people (well, to me, anyway) exploration may get a huge boost if it rewards them with good quest design and quality world building. I don´t think Fallout 3 has either, which to me results in the quality of its exploration aspect being severely diminished. In my book the only thing Fallout 3 has over Fallout: New Vegas is better exterior design and that´s not enough to make the exploration better since I don´t consider sightseeing to be its most important element.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
In my view, Fallout 3 world building far exceeds NV world building. Not in terms of lore, but in terms of visual design and atmosphere.