Fallout: New Vegas - Why It Felt Incomplete

Originally Posted by Motoki
I think it's an excellent game, really one of the better games in my recent memory and one of the only completely open world sandbox games with decent writing and a significant amount of C&C. It's basically a Bethesda game if they could write worth a damn and actually made the player's choice's matter, which is a good thing.

I find it amusing that this article lumps Bethesda Fallout with the first two games while this one, which was worked on by some of the people who actually made the first two games, was set apart.





It's the American Southwest so it's supposed to be dreary. Maybe you Scandavian types just don't appreciate the desert setting.

I suddenly have this mental image of two Nords stuck in Elsweyr (Khajiit land) complaining that there is nothing but sand.

Actually, I've been to most areas that the New Vegas depicts. I don't think the game is a realistic depiction of the actual locations at all. So it's not like they couldn't have used creative license to create more visually simulating environments. Desert setting is fine, but it could be a more atmospheric, diverse and exciting desert setting. It's a question of map design and visual design. Even with the outdated graphics engine they could have done better, simply by designing the game in a different manner.

I do admit the vanilla design was a bit sparse, but then again I play with a bunch of mods like Vurt's flora overhaul so I probably haven't noticed it as much.

wow, im supraised how well the author “feels” Fallout world (there a lot of new kids after F3) and articulated all the things that was uncounciously unsettling about New Vegas for me. I just want to add one thing that felt diffrent from isometric Fallouts (yes im ignoring Bethesda game). It felt that the world is allready quite rebuilt. In first fallouts there was a true sense of the wasteland, rusty abandoned installations, small isolated communities etc NV feels comressed without this sense of the overwhelming destruction of the world as we know it.
Its hard to explain and express. I played FO1 and FO2 as a kid and isometric gameplay allowed me to imagine the atmosphere of post apoc, feel smell this misery. Paradoxicly in FO3 and NV everything is shown and its harder to feel “it”

ahh i wonder if Van Buren was everything i wanted from Fallout 3.

To me F:NV is a proof that it is possible to craft an open world cRPG with modern production values without skimping on choices, consequences, multiple quest solutions, multiple quest entry points and general reactivity as well as on quality writing, importance and aplicability of non-combat skills or companions with reasonable depth.
The game felt substantially more complete than any other recent open world outing and in my book it provided a vastly superior experience to that of Fallout 3´s.
Its sole (though relatively major) flaw in regards to completeness imo is what Pessimeister said, aka in terms of content the game is too skewed towards NCR,
which mainly hurts the Caesar´s Legion faction.

Originally Posted by DeepO
Its sole (though relatively major) flaw in regards to completeness imo is what Pessimeister said, aka in terms of content the game is too skewed towards NCR,
which mainly hurts the Caesar´s Legion faction.

I completely agree with you overall evaluation of the game but not with this part.

I don't know if it is spoilerish, so:

Originally Posted by tuukka
Actually, I've been to most areas that the New Vegas depicts. I don't think the game is a realistic depiction of the actual locations at all.

You've been there after a nuclear war? Doctor?!?!

While I did like parts F:NV, I do agree that the pacing was way off. You could walk for minutes in the world without finding anything of note save for a few abandoned homes and farmhouses. While the writing was better than F3 overall, generally most of the characters were pretty boring, with plenty of backstory but little personality. I do think Obsidian are the guys to do the Fallout franchise from here, but I think they have a long ways to go before they can truly live up to the original games.

Originally Posted by bkrueger
I completely agree with you overall evaluation of the game but not with this part.

I didn´t mean the game nudges players towards NCR ending, just that the faction has comparatively too much content, most notably comparatively to Caesar´s Legion, that is.
The amount of screen time for NCR does make sense given the setting and I feel the other factions, "end-givers" included, were given an appropriate amount of content and exposition, but I´d prefer the conflict between NCR and Legion, as well as player´s agenda in it, to be more pronounced via more Legion exclusive content.

Uh, so basically, to reword (and shift a bit) my previous statement, the game´s sole (though relatively major) flaw in regards to completeness is Caesar´s Legion which wasn´t as fleshed out as I´d like. Make them control Nipton or some other city, make one companion a strong Legion supporter, add 3 or 4 side quests and it´s perfect .
The problem of NCR having too much related content isn´t really about completeness, but about the fact players miss out on quite a lot if they play a strongly anti-NCR character and more fleshed out Caesar´s Legion could´ve provided means to elevate this issue.

I thought the drab and desolate setting of FNV was much better than FO3's setting. FO3 felt too much like an over the top theme park to me. I stopped playing it after about 20 hours and never looked back. FNV on the other hand I explored almost every inch of the map and spent 150 hours on it. Obsidian must have done something right to keep my attention for that long.

Originally Posted by DeepO
I didn´t mean the game nudges players towards NCR ending, just that the faction has comparatively too much content, most notably comparatively to Caesar´s Legion, that is.

I understand and agree.

In any case for me NV is one of the best RPG experiences in the last years.

The three DLCs are also quite remarkable and quite different experiences…

Only problem for me was that the level cap is reached much to fast (was level 45 after completing half of the main game and two of the DLCs)…

Originally Posted by Motoki
It's the American Southwest so it's supposed to be dreary. Maybe you Scandavian types just don't appreciate the desert setting.

I suddenly have this mental image of two Nords stuck in Elsweyr (Khajiit land) complaining that there is nothing but sand.

So you suggest that, as a principle, interest emanates from familiarity?
I find that odd - I'd expect that these Nords would be quite fascinated.

I just played through New Vegas over the summer for roughly 80 hours, and I can barely remember any of the character's names. The writing wasn't that much better than FO3 in my opinion, and you can very quickly exhaust all conversation options with the rather one-dimensional companions. I was really excited that the game had companions, but I never felt a connection to them. The main plot felt very under-whelming as well, thanks to the poor pacing and lack of emotional investment. Choice and Consequence is one of my favorite aspects of RPGs, but if the main plot is weak and their is no emotional involvement, then it becomes slightly irrelevant.

I found the atmosphere to be severely lacking in comparison to FO3. FO3 felt like a convincing place, like a "real" post-nuclear war setting that was very immersive. New Vegas just felt a bit too silly at times and lacked cohesiveness. I really love that Obsidian tried to be so creative, but there is a constant lack of focus that is evident among the overly-exaggerated factions and absurd mixture of vastly different themes, and thus the atmosphere and general direction of the game didn't draw me in. There's a quasi-spaghetti western theme, a faction that models itself after the Romans yet fails to consistently act like them (they got the "brutal conquerors" aspect right, but idealistic moral crusaders? That's not exactly Roman), 1950's Las Vegas, Great Khans, the "pre-war government style" NCR… add it all together, and you have a wacky world that doesn't gel together to form a believable setting and sense of "place" that is so important for an open-world RPG. It also seems a bit uncreative to blatantly copy factions from history instead of creating new factions with their own unique lore and purpose, and this is probably why I felt the factions seemed so out of place.

These major criticisms aside, I still enjoyed my time with New Vegas and definitely consider it a worthwhile experience. But at the end of the day, I felt a constant urge to play FO3 again instead; there's just something about the atmosphere and sense of place that persists in FO3 that I just didn't feel with New Vegas. I love good humor in games if it is appropriate, but maybe I just prefer a more serious atmosphere for an open-world RPG. Whatever the reason, I just didn't feel engaged while exploring the world of New Vegas.

I wish there was a way for a company like Bethesda to hire the writers of Obsidian, because while Obsidian has some talented writers on their staff, they don't know how to make a convincing, immersive atmosphere for a game world, and their development style seems to lack focus. Combining Obsidian's wonderful creative and artistic capabilities with a developer who knows how to make a great game would be incredible.

I loved it. More than 100 hours easily. Don't understand the it's too short notion at all.

And although I don't disagree with the point the article made it didn't bother me at all. I hadn't noticed it until I read that. I was fine being the courier. And we shouldn't forget its not Fallout 4, it's a Fallout spinoff so it's understandable they took a different approach to it.

But I agree wholeheartedly about the map size. I was very disappointed when I realised there were those huge areas of the map you couldn't get to. Two Worlds 2 did the same thing with the single largest region in the game being off limits to single players and I think it's a freakin stupid thing to do.

Originally Posted by holeraw
So you suggest that, as a principle, interest emanates from familiarity?
I find that odd - I'd expect that these Nords would be quite fascinated.

It seems that's the way it works or else we wouldn't have umpteen million games in LoTR/D&D wannabe settings or Bethesda basically saying there won't be another game as "weird" as Morrowind (with the implication being that's because it won't sell as well as a more familiar setting).

Originally Posted by crpgnut
I loved both Fallout 3 and FNV. FNV had better writing, but I enjoyed the locations much better in FO3. It's hard to beat the Capitol Wasteland. I've logged over 200 hours in each game. I'm approaching 150 hours in Deus Ex on my 2nd complete playthrough. In the case of Deus Ex, I'm really just waiting for Frayed Knights to come out and I'll put it on the shelf.

150 hours in Deus Ex? (I assume you're talking about DX:HR) That seems like an aweful lot. I don't see how you could even get that much out of two playthoughs. I spent around 40 hours in my playthrough, and I explored every inch of the game and completed every sidequest.

Loved FO:NV. Going to be playing it again as soon as the final DLC is released.

While FO:NV didn't have as many locations as compared to FO3, what it did have was fleshed out immensely and interwoven (as opposed to the piece-meal locations of FO3). It felt VERY complete.

Regardless of what side the judgment falls on "completeness", I'd still play FO:NV over FO3 simply because dialogue wasn't written by third-graders.

Originally Posted by Drithius
… I'd still play FO:NV over FO3 simply because dialogue wasn't written by third-graders.

You must have ignored the cowboy robots and their dialogue

I cant wait to play Vegas in its complete form. Waiting for the GOTY and will put a ton of mods and enjoy. Any ideas when the GOTY will be released ???

Originally Posted by Motoki
It seems that's the way it works or else we wouldn't have umpteen million games in LoTR/D&D wannabe settings or Bethesda basically saying there won't be another game as "weird" as Morrowind (with the implication being that's because it won't sell as well as a more familiar setting).

Yes but I always assumed that that's because both the developers and the gamers are reluctant to take risks and/or because they lack imagination and creativity and not because they have consciously decided that that's the way to make their game more interesting.

After all, I didn't get the impression that Morrowind didn't achieve more than satisfactory sales and popularity. Besides, some games with unique and unusual settings, like PS:T and Fallout (before Bethesda made it mundane) are always among the most loved ones.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Agreed but you cant deny the game doesn't have problems. After all the patches I still get the usual ctds just like fallout 3. Then again they used the Gamebryo Game Engine so that explains it.

I shouldn't have to use mods and in edits just to make the game work.

True enough, but I'm very forgiving when it comes to bugs. I gauge a game on whether I'm having fun with it despite the bugs.

One of the best things about games now-a-days are mods. If a game has a certain bug or element we don't like then there is probably a mod out there that might fix that problem.

To me it's not about "shouldn't have to", but about "I have that option" We never had that option when we were buying games for the C64 or Intellivision. What you see is what you get back then (unless you knew how to program which I didn't). While many companies might take advantage of that by releasing horribly buggy software I do not believe that is the case with New Vegas. The dang thing is huge and in any game of this size you are bound to have bugs in it. I would much rather have a game from guys like Obsidian or even Troika (maybe even Bethesda…..I can't believe I just said that) which are buggy as hell when first released, but are amazing despite the bugs.

On the flip side you have a game like Arcania which hardly had any bugs in it, but was the most boring turd I've played in quite awhile.

It comes down to whether you like buggy great game or polished turds

Edit: BTW, I was fortunate I guess because I hardly had any bugs in that game or at least bugs that I noticed.