>"I gotta say, New Vegas is the best of the Fallout series! When I finally got the strip I was so overwhelmed, it was so immersive and massive!"
Console limitations and an aging engine is to blame. Bethesda wouldn't even give Obsidian an extension to flesh out the Legion as much as they wanted to, why the fuck would they have given them a new engine, too?
>literally "invisible walls and subway station" the town
>B-b-buh muh Bethesda!
SHut up retard, and get over the fact that it is basically proven at this point that Bethesda is full of hacks that could take a 6 year long shit and put it out in the market. But that doesn't matter because a shill like you will still buy into it and defend Bethesda's incompetency compared to a studio that created a better RPG in a nearly a fraction of the time.
>inb4: b-b-buh NV isn't a good game!
That's an objective statement, I said better RPG which is 100% true, now kill yourself faggot.
The strip wins as a better place to live safely. It's also a fucking terrible rendition of vegas.
When i was told that the next fallout took place in vegas and vegas survived, i imagined something way cooler.
Basically, New Vegas is to real Vegas as kingdom Hearts worlds are to the Disney movies they represent. Barebones, and lifeless.
>people in New Vegas threads like New Vegas
Anon, you stupid or something?
>Even the voice acting was terrible they would pronounce "caeser" in different eays...
I'm using this one.
So basically they're insulting Ulysses? A character who not only had a smooth ass voice but also represented the entire themes of Fallout? Holy fuck Bethesdrones are autistic.
Ulysses kinda sucked though bro
LR was disappointing as it was.
-For some reason he's stalking you delivering packages
-knows that you're carrying codes to nuke The Divide somehow even though you don't
-doesn't intervene when he could have
-lets the Divide get blown up
-his solution is to lure you through 3 hours of an irradiated obstacle course and then to tell you his evil plan and then to launch nukes himself because you singlehandedly ruined his life
worst dlc outside of DM
Maybe you should give us a reason you think its better so we could actually have a debate instead of just being a faggot eh?
Fallout 4 was fun enough, but God damn the dialogue/characters. I remember in NV I could listen to characters talk about shit and I actually remember names but not for 4. I finally got to the Institute and it was actually starting to get interesting and then they just fuck it up.
Was the level design in 3 all that good though? I'm not saying it's better than NV, but the only thing I really remember was an absurd amount of grey, dark green, and maybe the occasional white when I think of 3's design. I'd say 4's level design is 100% better than NVs, but it has so little quests revolving around some of those areas that it becomes off-putting to go to.
>not liking Dead Money
True sign of an absolute pleb. It's the one time in the game you're stripped of being the biggest, most revered badass around and people can't handle it because they need their power fantasies.
or maybe it was poorly designed you dumb cuck
I'm fine with that but the fact that enemies only died by being dismembered was dumb and discouraged shooting so good fucking luck if you're going in to it without being a melee build
then the radio bullshit was total trial and error
The only benefit I give to it is it had good writing
>That's an objective statement, I said better RPG which is 100% true, now kill yourself faggot.
Such obsidian loyalty
NV was a better rpg, but a shittier game. 3 never tried to be more than it could; it was meant to have a very basic plot
that ended up being shitty anyway, but bethesda always drops the ball when wrapping up plotlines, in a wasteland that went against the lore, with VATS masking the shit engine for combat, and making the overworld explorable and relatively interesting.
NV tried to make a proper RPG, where the branching questlines are broken at the end, full VA gets in the way of real choices, there aren't enough NPCs to make any location feel full, ADS gunplay is a sprinkle of sugar on a steaming turd, ammo types are fine, companions are far more interesting than 3 but don't have the opportunity to be really involved in the story, and fucking loading 3 new areas for the one fucking strip
>Console limitations and an aging engine is to blame
They should have made it isometric. No shit VA, more reliable quest branches, better combat, and no peering off into the horizon and seeing 20 equally spaced radscorpions pacing back and forth as a way to force you to go south of primm. I don't care what you say, that shit was disgusting.
>enemies only died by being dismembered
Take Dog with you. Problem solved.
I barely put any points on melee beyond the beginning of the game and didn't have much trouble as they provide you with good weapons.
In short, git gud.
>People saying it's because of consoles
>Meanwhile GTAV exists and proves even on potato hardware you can make an incredible open world
Obsidian a shit
more like Bethesda engine a shit
>inb4 "well, Bethesda games are harder to run because every object is physical!"
so stop making every object physical then, no one actually cares
yeah too bad he isn't available for when you're not allowed to take him and on hardcore he can die permanently which auto-kills you
but that was just 1 of the many problems with it. Continue to be a /v/ contrarian, there's a reason why it's the worst rated NV DLC :)
>So basically they're insulting Ulysses?
I think he was referring to NPCs calling Caesar by the modern pronunciation of his name if they're unaffiliated (NCR) or mocking the Legion (Joshua Graham), or by the Latin pronunciation if they were associated with the Legion.
I also didn't think Ulysses was all that interesting. I get that he personifies the creator's frustration with the direction the setting had taken in Fallout 2 and NV, but his flowery manner of speaking and ridiculous motivation for doing what he did drove me up the wall. I haven't played New Vegas in years, but I remember he pulled some hypocritical stunts in the DLC that made me want to wring his neck.
Jesus christ every Fallout thread is the exact same. The exact same fucking posts and arguments, to the point where I can't tell if you people are just posting copypasta as responses to each other.
I'm staying out of these threads from now on, it's like experiencing 5 layers of deja vu.
You could knock them unconscious by shooting them, then just jab them with a knife when they were down. If your gun skill was high enough, the police pistol could blow their heads off pretty easily.
Radios were fucking stupid though. I'm deaf, so you can imagine the bullshit I put up with trying to navigate those sections with only the pip-boy feedback in the top left of the screen.
>implying that 3's gunplay was any better
>implying that 3 never tried to focus in on the wanderer like a messiah/anit-christ of the wasteland
>implying that completely empty building #105 made 3 more explorable
If you just replace the empty desert with a bunch of buildings, and have one have decent weapon while all the others just have junk/stimpaks/nuka cola/skeleton with journal about doing something witty before the bomb, then bang NV's world is now equal to 3s.
>personifies the creator's frustration with the direction the setting had taken in Fallout 2 and NV
Fallout 1 is my favourite Fallout and I never played Ulysses DLC. How is this? It sounds interesting even if the execution was botched.
You can't deny that the design of dungeons and bases was 10x better than that of NV.
I mean, Helios One and the Gun Runner factory where made up of four rooms and held nothing of value except quest specific items.
If Fallout 3 could create multi-floor buildings/ dungeons with a few interesting scenarios, then why couldn't NV?
As for the metro tunnels- Most Metro tunnels have some varation in their layouts. Metro Central and the Flooded Metro are good examples of this.
It's more because they were rushed to finish their project. Don't get me wrong Obsidian has a terrible track record with finishing their games, but at least they actually try to put some effort in them.
>How is this? It sounds interesting even if the execution was botched.
it's very linear, and it involves a guy who insists you did something bad even though you can deny it and if you did do it there's no way you could have known it would happen and it wasn't your fault
>Helios One and the Gun Runner factory where made up of four rooms and held nothing of value except quest specific items.
gee, it's almost as if they weren't dungeons or something
>If Fallout 3 could create multi-floor buildings/ dungeons with a few interesting scenarios, then why couldn't NV?
some of the actual interesting areas are either really out of your way or are part of DLC, like the dunwich building, which not only was in some far off corner of the map, the only quest associated with it is DLC
Basically this. There's no point in arguing it anymore.
For the most part, people who liked 1 or 2 liked NV. People who don't like 1 and 2 or haven't played them like 3. Of course, there are exceptions on both sides but it seems like games for people with different preferences or priorities in terms of what they look for in a game.
There might be some point still in talking about FO4 since it's new, but the NV vs 3 arguments have all already been made a million times.
Even when 3 was the only Fallout I'd played and I was loving it the metro tunnels almost killed it for me. Knowing I'd have to wander through shitty tunnels early in the game to get things moving made me never want to start a new character.
I prefer New Vegas' approach to this kind of thing, where you're only sent through DOOM styler murder labyrinths on rare occasions where it makes sense, and the murder labyrinths actually feel like logically designed buildings that happen to be full of ghouls/mutants rather than DOOM-style murder labyrinths in the middle of a city.
As someone who has only played 2, New Vegas, and 4, should I bother going back for 1 and 3? I've played a bit of 1 but I'm not a fan of the controls, and every time I look at 3 on steam sales I just say "but I could just play the other games."
1 doesn't quite handle as well as 2 but I still think it's worth playing. It's very sharp and focused with what you need to do compared to the others and the setting is pretty cool.
3 is just another Bethesda open-world kill/loot forever thing with shitty writing and world design.
But I feel the sheer absurdity of some of the locations in 3 is what gave the wasteland as a whole a sense of personality, which in turn makes the Mojave feel very soulless by comparison.
I don't see how adding things that makes the gunplay a bit better is bad though. 5/0 (?) buckshot for the caravan shotgun was hilarious against groups of unarmoured enemies like Powder Gangers.
2 and New Vegas are set so far after the Great War that civilization is nearly back on its feet. The west coast, for example, has more or less been tamed by the NCR. NPCs in New Vegas claim that they're nearly at old world levels of living standards, for fucks sakes. The creator of the series isn't fond of this, since the heart of the setting was originally scavenging through the old world, but as the series goes further and further down the timeline, this makes less and less sense.
Lonesome Road's setting and plot was made from the ground up to revert this. Ulysses plans to nuke the NCR (remember that they're the largest, most developed faction in the Fallout universe), returning the west coast back to its roots. Ulysses' in-universe reason for doing this is revenge against the Courier, but he's clearly channeling the frustration of the writers. The Courier himself can launch the nukes at any faction he pleases following the confrontation with Ulysses.
Lonesome Road also engineers another catastrophic disaster that would cripple the setting: after the Great War, some humans retreated underground and mutated into subterranean monsters called Tunnelers that breed quickly, move quickly and hunt in packs dangerous enough to easily kill Deathclaw nests. The disaster that formed Lonesome Road's setting unearthed them and made them aware of the surface world, and according to Ulysses, they'll overrun the Mojave in a matter of years (and presumably spread out from there in order to wipe the rest of the setting clean).
or was it the base game?also revealed that the NCR has completely drained their aquifers, placing them in a critical water shortage. Couple these three massive threats to the only truly civilized sections of new-world America, and its plain as day that the writers are trying to return to the post-apocalyptic setting instead of the post-post-apocalyptic setting of Fallout 2 and NV.
except for the part where any copyrighted material won't be allowed on consoles, I wouldn't be able to sling around boston as spiderman in the nuclear apocalypse if I played on console, or have famous guns from various movies, or have custom radios
Any content that requires scripting or taxes the engine in any way most likely won't be ported to consoles. So you're basically looking at generic texture changes for 'console modding.'
I really dislike everyone's obsession with post-apocalypse stuff. Post-post apocalypse has so much raw potential for all sorts of stories, and a lot of the place is still gonna be pretty fucked up anyway so it's not like you can't have a bit of scavenging raider action on the side.
I can't actually really think of any post-post apocalypse stuff other than Fallout 2 and NV, actually. It's a damn shame.
that seems kind of counter-intuitive though, the natural reaction to a post-apocalyptic scenario is to try to rebuild society, if they're going to keep trying to reset it back to the same state it will just get stale and pointless, because the players know whatever progress they make will be ultimately irrelevant.
4 just wasn't as interesting or even as well-paced as 3.
The ability to create different builds and see different outcomes for quests that was in 3 kept me coming back to it for awhile. Fallout 4 removed those elements in the name of casualisation, so the whole game just feels hollow.
Fallout 3 was able to hide it's flaws behind it's charm, Fallout 4 couldn't.
Well I love all of their games, I guess they could improve their time management skills, but other than that, yeah.
>hurr you can't like this developer even if they're good, you have to be contrarian
Yeah, can't argue with you there
And there's going to be people complaining that XYZ doesn't work together or that UBER GRAPHICS ENHANCER +1000 PART 3/12 makes the console explode from overheating
And there's inevitably going to be people who find workarounds and literally make new homebrew games.
>The ability to create different builds and see different outcomes for quests that was in 3 kept me coming back to it for awhile.
did we play the same game? 3 was just as shit in this regard
Tunnelers are easy as fuck to kill, and they seem more of the territorial type, considering they never attack you outside of their nests. You also got to keep in mind that the deathclaw they showed getting killed was injured and by itself.
>since the heart of the setting was originally scavenging through the old world
No it wasn't. It was about people rebuilding the new world, often in the image of the old and that war never changes because human nature never changes. Fallout 1 still had society.
Software technology and development time was different.
But yes you are right, you can do really good things with potato hardware.
A shame that a lot of developers do not try to do this because they are trying their hardest for graphics only.
Fallout 3 had 13 skills and at least 50 perks.
Fallout 4 had no skills.
The only side quests in Fallout 3 that only have one solution are the Nuka-Cola Challenge, Reilly's Rangers and Agatha's Song.
In Fallout 4, every quest had linear progression.
I liked Fallout 3, I'd even go as far to say that it's one of Bethesda's better games, but it's clear from Fallout 4 and Skyrim that it was a massive fluke.
Reminder that Obsidian managed to create a better and more compelling story with a bunch of notes in a DLC than Bethesda ever did in two Fallout games
Ulysses states in-universe that the Tunnelers are so numerous, fast and dangerous that they could overrun the Mojave within years, and that The Divide exposing them to the surface made them hunger for new prey. Them coming up from their subterranean tunnel networks to hunt at all was probably supposed to be a sign of their aggressive expansion. Obviously the Tunnelers are pretty trivial to deal with in-game, but I think that we're just supposed to take his word for it that the Tunnelers in-universe are far more dangerous and aggressive than they're shown to be through gameplay.
On the other hand, Ulysses is an unreliable dramatic fucktard, so he could be blowing the whole thing way out of proportion like you said.
You're right, the heart of the series isn't focused on scavenging. Poor choice of words. My point is that the guy who wrote Lonesome Road wants the civilizations in Fallout to be stuck rebuilding like they were in Fallout 1, instead of already being rebuilt like New Vegas implies the west coast was.
Because yew don't knead two flesh out an entire plotline with notes, you only have to put down the most basic of elements and let the atmosphere and the player's mind fill in the rest of the blanks
that being said, Bethesda fucking sucks at writing, I'd rather a Fallout game with no main quest at all if they were the ones making it.
Tunnelers in-universe are far more dangerous and aggressive than they're shown to be through gameplay.
I think it's about the same. You have to remember that Lonesome Road is essentially 'End Game' the DLC so their difficulty kind of just blends with everything else in that area. If you were to put 100 Tunnelers up against 100 Veteran Rangers, the tunnelers would win, every time.
>people only disliked DM because it took away their gear
When will people stop telling themselves this lie?
I absolutely understand the design choice behind removing the player's gear, and I'd love a stealth oriented survival-horror take on New Vegas. The problem is that DM completely fucked up the stealth aspect. The ghost people have glitched perception that makes them some of the hardest enemies in the game to sneak past instead of the easiest like they were supposed to be, so sneaking past them is often the least practical way of dealing with them even when DM supposedly rewards you for avoiding combat. Then you have companions that jump into combat and force you to babysit them the moment combat starts, so if you can't rely on stealth then you can't run from fights either. DM punishes the player for fighting, but then it also accidentally punishes the player for trying to do anything else. They may as well have just let me keep my gear if I'm going to end up shooting everything anyway.
God, I never realised that. The Roman influence really did run deep, didn't it.
Both the Germans and the Russians thought they were heirs to Rome. Germans the heirs to the West, and Russians to the East. However the Eastern Orthodox Church did formally name Russia as the new head of Rome at the fall of Constantinople. So the Russians referring to themselves as "The Third Rome" has some merit. My knowledge of what the Germans used as their claim is sketchy, though. I think it may have something to do with Charlemange, but I could be wrong.
>tfw just finished NV and all the DLC for the first time
I'm in love