Fallout: NV - Retrospective @ Enthusiacs

DArtagnan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bethesda worked on FO3 for 4 years, with a very large team + good knowledge about the engine.

Obsidian created FO:NV in 1.5 - 2 years (cant remember exactly), they had to learn the engine + build a big open world with a smaller team.

I guess it's not too bad if you take that into account.. Obviously FO3 has better world building and design, but it could have been much better if you take into account the larger team and time frame + extremely good knowledge about the engine.

I'd love to see Obsidian working together with Bethesda for a, pretty much, perfect game.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
DeepO said:
I don´t consider sightseeing to be its most important element.
Click to expand...
Neither do I. If I did, Watch Dogs would be my game of the century. But it's not.

Thus I couldn't care less for endless and boring FO3 "dungeons" and overall emptyness with mobs respawning out of nowhere. Give me more New Vegas stories instead.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
Any examples?

I really didnt care that much for the western theme in FO:NV, also didnt like much of the art design, e.g robot's with the cartoon TV faces.. NV has a more serious and darker tone (story and character wise) but often has a rather silly design that doesn't go well with that at all (speaking of cohesiveness).

i really prefer the more Road warrior / sci-fi'ish theme Bethesda went for, it has a less serious tone and was just overall better and seemed far more thought out.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
vurt said:
Any examples?
Click to expand...
For me it essentially boils down to a virtual world vs. a virtual theme park.
Exploring F:NV and talking to its inhabitants slowly made the world come alive to me, feel wholesome (though I think there´s one fairly notable flaw and that is Legion faction being underrepresented), whereas I never got that sensation in F3 since I felt it largely consisted of mostly unconnected vignettes without much in the way of overarching themes. It felt a lot more randomly put together when compared to NV. F3´s world also felt less believable from the perspective of it being set 200 years after an apocalypse and, unlike NV, I don´t remember it featuring anything resembling a means of sustainability or attempts at rebuilding civilization.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,437
Location
Prague
Ah ok, yes i can agree with that somewhat. FO3 has a bigger number of "themes" while in FO:NV it's more wholesome. Though i always thought it was a bit funny that the snowy region Jacobstown is so close to the steaming hot desert, the transistion is hardly very believable. I dont mind that much because i like variety.

As i see it, the biggest let down is New Vegas itself, which even modded (to become more interesting etc) is a real drag, a really, really boring location.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
vurt said:
NV has a more serious and darker tone (story and character wise) but often has a rather silly design.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is one of the things I love about the original Fallouts that FO3 didn't get right.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
3,216
Location
Sweden
FO3 doesn't get nearly enough shit for how Beth cut up DC and overused metro tunnels. If the Strip in FNV was just underwhelming the amount of invisible walls in DC was simply embarrassing.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
1,718
Location
Dear Green Place
Nah, actually - I think FO3 gets the amount of shit it gets because FO diehards were determined to hate it. FO:NV kinda gave them an excuse to like the new approach that they refused to accept with FO3 - and I tend to think the NV love gets to be a little out there given the quality of what's there.

But it's only natural, given the emotional investment some people have in the ancient past :)
 
FNV had a superior engine, story, and dialog than fo3. It gets the love it gets because going from fnv to fo3 is a stark contrast of underwhelming proportions. All this in <2 years development time. Yes, FO3 has a better atmosphere (and less barren desert), but that's about the only thing it has going for it.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
5,980
Location
Florida, USA
superior engine? it's the exact same engine, just with more bugs since they obviously had little time to learn it. I had a lot more stuttering with FNV + there's even more z-fighting issues than in FO3 + more crashes too.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
tomasp3n said:
Actually, this is one of the things I love about the original Fallouts that FO3 didn't get right.
Click to expand...

The original FO's werent that dark though. There's a lot of comic relief and cultural references to comedy like Austin Powers, Flintstones, back to the future etc.

FO3 did that really well i think, with many references to cult movies and music.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
Drithius said:
FNV had a superior engine, story, and dialog than fo3. It gets the love it gets because going from fnv to fo3 is a stark contrast of underwhelming proportions. All this in <2 years development time. Yes, FO3 has a better atmosphere (and less barren desert), but that's about the only thing it has going for it.
Click to expand...

The engine was identical, more or less. It's exactly this kind of fantasy exaggeration that makes the whole thing a bit suspect :)

Sure, it had better writing and marginally better mechanics - but it was inferior in most other ways, which is decidedly unimpressive given how much they could take from.

Two years working with what other people made is what you consider more impressive than what Bethesda did alone? Sure, ok :)

Taking all those assets and managing to come up with a world where everything looks half-baked with floating meshes all over the place. Taking New Vegas as the main location - and then having it be dull and split up in a zillion sections? Lazy crappy work, or that's what it felt like to me.
 
There was a greater 'role-playing' spectrum in FO:NV, consider that the add-ons tied in with the content matter to extend the concept, completing the full circle storyline with the final add-on Lonesome Road.

Dead Money
Honest Hearts
Old World Blues
Lonesome Road

The add-ons were supplementary but within the FO:NV concept initially and therefore the package with it's potential has to be considered as a whole, we cannot omit the add-ons when they were part of the total storyline!

So bearing this in mind, FO:NV with it's stringed extensions was superior to FO3 by far.

Some gamers might disagree with this especially those that have not played the add-ons.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,105
Location
North-West England
If the game = its story, then perhaps - and if buying DLC to complete the story is a good thing.

But I think Fallout is about much more than its story. Again, exploration and immersion is where FO3 wins big-time.
 
DArtagnan said:
The engine was identical, more or less. It's exactly this kind of fantasy exaggeration that makes the whole thing a bit suspect :)
Click to expand...

It's not fantasy; it's technically the same engine, but Obsidian took it further with the superior implementation of crafting, ironsights, and weapon modding. There's a reason the vast majority of modders don't even bother with FO3 these days and it has little to do with FO3's RPG quality (or lack thereof).

The Witcher also used the "same" engine as NWN2… and I'd hardly call those remotely comparable.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
5,980
Location
Florida, USA
Drithius said:
It's not fantasy; it's technically the same engine, but Obsidian took it further with the superior implementation of crafting, ironsights, and weapon modding. There's a reason the vast majority of modders don't even bother with FO3 these days and it has little to do with FO3's RPG quality (or lack thereof).

The Witcher also used the "same" engine as NWN2… and I'd hardly call those remotely comparable.
Click to expand...

You're talking about gameplay features - not engine features. You can have all the same things in FO3 with mods as well.

But don't let me get in the way of your delusion ;)
 
yeah those are gameplay changes that modders already did for FO3, way before FO:NV was released, duh. Obsidian took inspiration and help from modders (Bethesda does this too, and has hired modders and some are now in their staff afaik).
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
Mods don't handle it as seamlessly. It is a pain in the ass to deal with those shortcomings when you need to work with and bring in CRAFT, scripted weapon mod/model changes, and other "fixes" not intrinsic to the engine. This is half the reason for Tale of Two Wastelands' existence - implenting FO3's world within the more capable FNV engine.

But you two obviously love your FO3, so more power to you.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
5,980
Location
Florida, USA
Drithius said:
Mods don't handle it as seamlessly. It is a pain in the ass to deal with those shortcomings when you need to work with and bring in CRAFT, scripted weapon mod/model changes, and other "fixes" not intrinsic to the engine. But you two obviously love your FO3, so more power to you.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's quite easy :)

But, ok, let's just pretend Obsidian did a new engine. Why not ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom