1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Go here, thanks. http://sugarbombed.com/index.php?threads/state-of-the-forum.21523/
Moving To Discord Chat Service
To join the chatroom, follow this link.
Click here to join

Rant Response To "new Vegas Is Perfect? State Of The Fallout Union Address"

Discussion in 'MrMattyPlays' started by SitcomedyIsn'tFunny, Feb 8, 2017.

  1. I know this video was pretty old, but I watched it pretty recently and developed a few thoughts I really wanted to share. I don't know how the conversation has changed since it's uploading, whether your opinion's changed or not, but oh well. Maybe there will be some new insights here anyways.

    ---WALL OF TEXT, FULL FUCKING ESSAY INCOMING--

    I disagree pretty strongly with a lot of the statements made in your video, but I really hope this doesn't come across as aggressive or confrontational in any way. You're free to love the Fallout games that you love, but I just wanted to make a case for the reasons that New Vegas is as beloved as it is, and criticize some of the different aspects of Fallout 3. Not to further flame the debate and brandish "New Vegas" as the objectively superior game, but to point out some of the reasons fans like me do consider New Vegas to be the best in the franchise, and defend the rationality of calling New Vegas the "definitive" Fallout experience, however controversial or subjective such a statement might be.

    Of course I'll concede that Fallout: New Vegas is not "perfect", it has no god-like status, and I myself laugh at the new user reviews that claim it to be so. The game was very buggy at launch, and after 450 hours, I've noticed many of the areas are noticeably incomplete. It was a rushed game and that shows. It's messy, crude, unwieldy, etc.. It's had to rely greatly on the community for it to reach even part of its full potential. But I've still loved it more than any other title.

    After 7 years, I think it's aged very, very well as opposed to Fallout 3. It was built on the same engine with a lot of the same technology, but after 7 years of interaction between game and thriving modding community, the bugs are fixed, graphics improved, lore-friendly content expanded, and it can be given a surprising new degree of polish with the right items off the Nexus. Maybe it's just me, but if I try to go back to Fallout 3 and play it again I just can't. It was the first Fallout I ever played, and it left a great initial impression, but It doesn't have near the degree of quality mod support, and it feels old and a little bit empty compared to my long experience with New Vegas. This is where I think you two might be sort of influenced by nostalgia.

    People like to criticize New Vegas for having an emptier world, but I don't understand it. From a shallow evaluation or a very short gameplay experience, it might feel that way, just a lot of desert with little interesting locations, but to me that shows a failed effort to really engage with the game world. The world of the Mojave wasteland is very different from the Capitol, it's more like the frontier of a world beginning to regain it's bearings, it's the edge of new civilization. There are real towns, settlements, camps, and people all over the place. The desert itself is just a tool for making the world feel more realistic, the barren harshness of the Mojave being mostly a backdrop to complete the setting and atmosphere. Instead, follow the roads, talk to the people in these dwellings, that's where the game world is experienced, and where the game world thrives. The amount of story and lore to be experienced talking to the settlers, prospectors, soldiers, beggars, etc., in the Mojave's diverse population is incredible, and I think in this sense the locations that are there are much more interesting than a lot of what exists in the Capitol wasteland.

    Contrasting with the world of New Vegas, Fallout 3's world is really empty (please don't hit me). I know this might sound strange, and if you still prefer it to the setting of New Vegas after hearing what I have to say, that's okay. But there are, to me, serious reasons to feel like the Capitol wasteland is empty, boring, and unengaging. The world is very populated physically, with raiders, ruins, buildings, etc., but there is very little to actually do in these places. Unlike New Vegas, where almost every location is tied to a quest, marked or unmarked (much like skyrim), Fallout 3's world is populated with just a lot of enemies. I know there is content to be discovered, but encounters with actual people who have anything interesting to say (like the Reily's Rangers encounter in DC), are sparse. I definitely appreciate the silent story telling behind the world-that-was, where skeletons and age-old scenery can act as evidence for events long transpired, but that kind of novelty wears itself out. There just isn't much of a world to live in. Fallout 3 has 17 named side quests, as opposed to 75 for New Vegas.

    Any other point of merit for New Vegas you've already heard. Most people agree it's just a better RPG. Deeper faction systems, more contributions to lore and story, a branching main quest line, bla bla, all that good stuff. So, all things considered, I would call New Vegas the "definitive" Fallout game. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but what it does mean is that I think it's the best in the series. If I were to introduce the franchise to a friend who's never played, I would tell them to play New Vegas, give them my mod load order, and tell them to be ready for a really unique and engrossing experience.

    p.s., I think the best way to understand why New Vegas is so beloved is to take a look at a few random moments of Gopher's modded playthrough. I don't know man, maybe you just fundamentally disagree, but that's what makes Fallout special to me.
     
    Arch Draitex and Flowiest Joui like this.
  2. The reason I basically prefer Fallout 3 over New Vegas is because Fallout 3 has a post-apocalyptic atmosphere, while New Vegas has a western-war atmosphere. I'd like to say the same thing many people say about Fallout 4 to Fallout New Vegas (as a joke, of course) "Its a good game, but not a really good fallout game." What I mean by this is that Fallout New Vegas has a lot less focus on the world being Post-Apocalyptic, but more on the play between major powers.
    This is also why I prefer the summarized plot of Fallout 3 more - you may have less choice, but it really fits into Post-Apocalypse better. In Fallout New Vegas you have an twisted war of ideologies and power, which isn't a bad plot and is certainly quite interesting, but it feels a lot less like a Post-Apocalyptic game from the plot. Meanwhile in Fallout 3 you have a plot about helping people to the most needed and most inaccessible resource in the wasteland - water. Comparing the stories by summary one is definetly more Post-Apocalyptic in nature, and in many ways fits in with the old Fallouts (A search for something, to help/save people).

    In most other ways I can agree NV is better than 3, but some things you brought up i'd argue against.
    The amount of quests kinda damages NV as an experience for me. If an area isn't tied to a quest then you don't feel the need to go there, but when you want to do anything besides the quests you don't have much to do (besides gambling and the arena). While I have probably played NV more I felt the wanderlust and all that much more in Fallout 3 and its probably because of this reason
    + the restricted areas in NV. You need to take one route because deathclaws, you shouldn't go that way because cazadors, etc. That all feels restricting and annoying imo. It would be okay if you could pass these areas heading some way, or have the chance to fight the beasts, but mostly these are unpassable.

    The last thing I want to say is about the modding. If you want to make a honest and trustable review of a game or show someone why you think a game is the best in its franchise then you shouldn't take mods into account. The presence of a modding API certainly helps (fallout 3 has that too, so it isn't really a good argument here), but it shouldn't be used as a main point for why the game is good.


    And last but not least, if you want to show someone a game they know nothing about, don't get their hopes up. its just a bad idea fam XD
     
  3. #3 SitcomedyIsn'tFunny, Feb 8, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2017
    It does say a lot if a game needs any community involvement to make the experience complete. I would agree that if you were to critique these two games you would definitely not cite how mods have helped to improve it, and games should be evaluated based on how they stand on their own two legs. So I wouldn't necessarily intend any of my opinions to be taken as "reviews" or anything similar, and I tend to stay out of those types of discussions altogether, but I do think that mods can help turn a game into a better experience. So in a pragmatic and practical sense, I think it's very worth talking about how the community has kept a game alive, improving, and relevant. In the same vein, I think a more accurate-to-my-opinion statement wouldn't be that Obsidian created the pinnacle of the Fallout franchise, but rather that I think the pinnacle experience can be gained from New Vegas in 2017

    I can definitely understand where you're coming from on your other two points, though. Although I absolutely love the themes and setting of New Vegas, it definitely is missing a lot of the post apocalyptic survival themes from the other games, and even my own explanation of the best way to experience the world indicates that it isn't as enabling of completely free-roam exploration as Bethesda's fallouts

    i gotcha fam
     
    guul66 likes this.
  4. thanks for an open mind, not a lot of fnv fans have that.
     
    SitcomedyIsn'tFunny likes this.

  5. I agree with you man, I love New Vegas and think it's much better and held up much better than Fallout 3...and 4 to be honest.

    And you addressed NV's flaws aswell, but even with those flaws i think they still have MUCH fewer flaws than 3 and 4.

    Props to you, i 100% agree that NV is the perfect introduction and ''definitive'' fallout experience... along with fallout 2 ;)
     
    SitcomedyIsn'tFunny likes this.
  6. Could never really rekindle my love for 1 and 2... Graphics is way to important since I'm a more visual kind of guy. But I have fond memories of them both and 1 is still the game that started it all for me.
     

Share This Page