Fallout: New Vegas

[Tyler]

Seriously though, I wish they'd had enough time to add more Caesar content. I would love to see how their occupied territory looks first-hand. We hear tons of tales about how bandits don't plague merchants or towns, but I wonder how much the safety is worth.

[El Dildo]

 

Seriously though, I wish they'd had enough time to add more Caesar content.

I can agree with that.

 

of course Fallout always gives you the option to be good or evil... but it really seems like the best rewards (or the most rewards) come from being good and helping people.

I've always wished that being evil was more 'fleshed out,' if you will. because it's also a lot of fun to be a looting / pillaging dick but then you miss out on some quests / items.

 

I feel like the next Fallout should explore more options for rewarding evil play.

[Tyler]

I feel that. I'd like it if they continued to put more reliance on faction and less on morality. Morality in games feels way too linear for my liking. There's not enough nuance. Giving us tons of choice without a black-or-white system of measuring how good or bad our actions are is a lot more freeing, anyway.

 

Also, agreed on the rewards. Being good gets you all the sh*t you need, whereas being bad offers little more than some immediate fun. I tried to play neutral as possible and even that didn't offer much. I had to connive my way to riches without being overly "good" from killing tons of drug addicts on the outskirts of the city. Saying that out loud is ridiculous. It's like legitimately the most republican thing, calling the mass murder of addicts "good."

[Mokrie Dela]

Yes I agree with the good/bad thing

It's a challenge I hit while writing my fallout fic - one good protag and one bad one. It's been difficult having them neutral to begin with and not having it feel forced. I want to avoid shallow, hollow characters. Perhaps this is why Bethesda offer more for good- would that be how the world would be? Or are they trying to inject moralit education into the narrative? Being bad does pay because stealing gets you some decent gear for free (high end weapons) or at least some free caps for it

 

There's sh*tloads of money to be made in the lonesome road too. A guess I think you can get a hundred thousand caps from that dlc alone.

 

Playing as a apecified morality has its challenges. It's hard to get the 'good' endingsof quests at times, because picking the most natural option isn't always the best

 

Take dead money for example

I really wanted to avoid killing dean and Elijah but the former was not an option due to a obscure choice when meeting him and the latter was just a fool

 

I wouldn't mind 'good' and 'bad' options being clearer tbh, so it's easier to make that distinction between your actions, especially when there is never an option I dialogue that's obviously one or the other ...

 

I wonder where 4 will be set. I'd like to see a paradise lost sort of thing, like Miami, with beaches and ruined hotels but I doubt there's enough there

Chicago?

 

What I they do a reboot with LA or something... Start from scratch?

[L.S.P.D.]

I wonder what the next Fallout is going to take place?

[Pat]

What I they do a reboot with LA or something... Start from scratch?

Please God no. If it's being made by Bethesda, they should stick to the east coast. They already f*cked enough things up with Fallout 3, I can't imagine how much they would f*ck the lore up if they tried rewriting it from scratch.

[Mokrie Dela]

I'm one of the FO3 onward players and all I can say is I thought it was good. In aware the game used to be very different but I prefer the '3d' ones if you know what I mean.

My issue is bugs a d the ambiguity of quests, goals, actions etc as said - wanting to play as a specific style (good bad etc) isnt as easy as it could r

Perhaps it's a good thing, however but it does get in the way when I'm playing as a 'messiah' and end up getting the bad ending of the quest.

Although with that said, if it was black and white an clear, it'd probably suck

 

Why is there a common consensus that 3 ruined the series? (I'm not attacking such opinions but asking for the reasons behind it)

[Tycek]

Simply because Bethesda shat on the lore, created laughable story containing all elements taken from previous FOs and generally didn't give a sh*t about fans.

 

This is great picture explaining everything: http://i.imgur.com/w0Ba8.jpg

Edited May 31, 2013 by Tycek

[Fireman]

In very very short terms;

 

It became a shooter.

[Mokrie Dela]

Simply because Bethesda shat on the lore, created laughable story containing all elements taken from previous FOs and generally didn't give a sh*t about fans.

 

This is great picture explaining everything: http://i.imgur.com/w0Ba8.jpg

That pic makes some interesting points, but also some dumb ones

"all vehicles are packed with high explosives." Thats not a plot hole at all. In fact it's perfectly sensical. They're loaded with nuclear fuel cells - fission batteries or something. That makes as much sense as shooting a petrol cap in a car to blow it up. It's a game mechanic and if people are going to go down THAT road, then every game is flawed for the same reason:

 

Gta because you kill hundred and get away with it (in real life cops would bring Hell unto you for killing a cop)

Fallout itself for the concept of people surviving nuclear Armageddon.

 

That pic also lists bugs as plotholes too. Some points are also repeated and the spelling is off - it loses credibility when the so called fallout fan can't spell "behemoth"

 

 

reading all this, however, has made me question my fallout fanfic. The fact it's not taking any of the other games as canon and i've only played 3 and NV, makes me wonder - is there any point in continuing it? I had no idea there was so much hate on 3/NV!

[Tycek]

Point is that 3 is getting hate. NV despite being built up on the broken foundations was made by the guys who made 1 and 2 and this saves this game in fans' eyes.

 

Agree that some of the points are repeating, but despite that fact this pic is explaining some things.

 

And about your fanfic. I wonder how much 3 you incorporated into, but despite that fact I would love to see it.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Tycek

[sivispacem]

In all fairness, quite a lot of those gripes and bugs- and many more besides- exist in Fallout 1 and 2. For some reason, the author assumes that everyone who plays 3 will grind like an idiot and use every exploit to their advantage. Which is a ridiculous assertion as you can do exactly the same in in Fallout 1 and 2, but no, you can't mention that because criticism is only allowed of the recent incarnations. For the record, I agree with some of the legitimate criticisms of 3- such as the flawed RPG mechanics and almost complete absence of focus on reputation and morality, but suggesting that F3 is bad by suggesting numerous ways in which you can exploit the game, whilst failing to acknowledge the numerous exploits that exist in earlier incarnations as if only current gamers use them, is a bit stupid in my view.

[El Dildo]

 

This is great picture explaining everything: http://i.imgur.com/w0Ba8.jpg

but that's not a great picture and it doesn't explain everything

it's ignoring one simple, little - yet monumental - point: none of that stuff matters because Fallout 3 is a fun game.

 

I would put money on the notion that most people who played Fallout 3 (and New Vegas, for that matter) didn't notice ANY of the grievances outlined in that pic.

and it seems like most of those complaints could also have been levied at Fallout 1/2, to be honest. especially the RPG loopholes and occasionally crappy dialogue.

 

you can't tell me Fallout 1/2 were perfect games or anything.

most of the hate for Fallout 3 seems to come exclusively from old fanboys who are taking all of this way too seriously... I mean, I wouldn't play these games if they didn't provide hours of fun. do I really give a sh*t that the lore has been screwed with or that the RPG elements aren't 100% realistic?

[Mokrie Dela]

Point is that 3 is getting hate. NV despite being built up on the broken foundations was made by the guys who made 1 and 2 and this saves this game in fans' eyes.

 

Agree that some of the points are repeating, but despite that fact this pic is explaining some things.

 

And about your fanfic. I wonder how much 3 you incorporated into, but despite that fact I would love to see it.

The story itself is character driven, whereas Fallout appears to be driven by the world itself, the characters don't feel THAT important, if that makes sense.

 

The first few chapters take place in a Vault, where one protagonist is introduced, and their life is a miserable one of bullying and social exile. The second protagonist appears as the opposite; strong, confident, secure and cold-hearted.

 

The story is broken into multiple parts or Acts. Eventually they leave the vault, to begin expeditions out into the world with a view to integrate the Vault into whatever communities are out there and also to source parts. The world is alien to these two characters, and there's a level of naivety. Character A is intimidated by it, but fascinated also, whereas character B relishes the freedom of being outside. Their adventure twists and turns from there.

 

 

So yes, there are heavy elements of Fallout 3 in there, but also of the older ones (the water chip for example). The story is not a shooter. but such RPG elements do not work in a written story - it's all linear. I've tried to create polar opposites in the characters that reflect my own playing experience - I created a character in 3 that grew from this naive kid into this cold hearted bastard, corrupted by the world etc, and that became one character for my story. The second was the opposite, from me playing as a "saviour". One is greedy and kinda dumb muscle, with no conscience or morality, just his own goals. The other is emphatic, emotive and timid, an honest hearted person who wants to help, but whose naivity is clear, almost a childlike character, whereas the other is more solid and adult, but in another way, the "good" character's more mature, smarter, and non confrontational, and the other a trouble maker.....

 

I have a lot written, but not enough for an upload yet. I want the story to be established before i show it off, and if that takes 3 weeks, 3 months or a year, so be it.

 

I never got in to the older games, so any influences are of course taken from 3 and NV. I've created NEW mutations and communities but my original idea of the story is still in the ethers - I can either set it as a continuation of the games, or I can set it as a stand alone story, counting none of the others as canon. The latter comes from an idea i had about the Enclave and Brotherhood of Steel and NORAD at cheyenne mountain.

I've created a faction akin to the NCR and Enclave - the midwest government called the RoA, so there's influences there, but also the question of continuity, which I am still undecided. The risk I'm finding is many of my ideas are too similar to existing ones - such as The Divide and The Pitt. I'm still searching for a form that isn't too similar to those, because I personally won't accept writing something I'm aware is a rip off.

 

[Happyness]

Do I really give a sh*t that the lore has been screwed with or that the RPG elements aren't 100% realistic?

What's the point of role-playing if it isn't 100% realistic?

[sivispacem]

Do I really give a sh*t that the lore has been screwed with or that the RPG elements aren't 100% realistic?

What's the point of role-playing if it isn't 100% realistic?

How can any fantasy or science fiction ever be realistic?

[Tycek]

 

This is great picture explaining everything: http://i.imgur.com/w0Ba8.jpg

 

none of that stuff matters because Fallout 3 is a fun game.

 

 

 

Well, that's like your opinion, man.

 

I've completed F3 three times. Two of them before NV and one after. NV opened my eyes and I simply couldn't and I still can't get back to 3. Last playthrough was for the achievements only and it was a drag.

 

I won't tell you that F1 and 2 were perfect games, because they weren't. They were bugfests and even with patches made by fans they still are. But there is a difference between them and F3. Interplay and Black Isle thought about everything before creating a game and they made it with love to the details. Bethesda just rehashed TES: Oblivion to their needs. Of course plot holes and crappy dialogues were present in F1 and 2, but not like 100% of time. The most saddening fact is that Bethesda made post-apocalyptic game before and it was perfect. Terminator: Future Shock was published years before its time. If they wanted similar game made these days they could easily produce new IP, leaving Fallout for Obsidian and/or Troika Games.

 

And if you're expecting Fallout fans (I am one of them) to just smile and take F3 as it is, then you simply should think again about it. You can't simply take game with huge fans base and piss on them. These people were grieving when Interplay cancelled Van Buren and one sh*tty shooter set in similar world won't be enough. I know you can say times are changing, turn-based RPG won't be selling now, life sucks wear a hat or something similar, but nobody is expecting return of old FOs. Fans are just expecting respect paid to the old games. You shouldn't make game with number "3" in the title and expect people who loved previous part to love this one, because it's not the way to do it. And if Bethesda wanted to make title for new people they could call it just Fallout. Let me ask you how would you feel if Activision would buy Half-Life rights and turn it into annual, five hours long linear game with excessive MP, leaving Freeman and everything that happened before out? You should love it, it would be a FPS game after all. If Half-Life isn't your thing put there any game you like.

 

And if you're think we can sh*t on lore because it's not realistic, why shouldn't Disney made Star Wars movie set on Earth? Or why not piss on Alien, Terminator? Their lores aren't realistic either. Let's made an Aliens movie where the creatures will be results of military experiments in the Area 51 or Terminator where aformentioned machine was just a prototype of future cop going wild.

 

Discussion about F3 vs NV is emerging every couple of weeks, giving more or less the same results. I won't convince you to hate F3 and you won't convince me to love it. If you liked it, then it's okay. I am happy if you're happy. I didn't enjoyed it as much as you, but I can live with it.

 

@Mokrie Dela.

 

Your story sounds interesting and I would love to see it. If you will finish it and decide to not post it, I will gladly contact you via PM or email to see it. If it will be okay with you of course.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Tycek

[Mokrie Dela]

In all honesty tycek, it will be finished and uploaded. Getting fans and read is difficult as I believe you have seen so it'll be slow

I can't promise it'll fulfil your appetite for the older game styles or content. I know little about them if I'm honest. As I said the challenge is including the familiar but maintaining consistency with the games

Two examples, and one I already said:

1- I wrote a chapter today with the first encounter with a supermutant. I realised something. There's two types - V87 and mariposa, both different. In my story the Mutie had a captive wastelander. How does this match up to previous games? Does it contradict them? I described it as the ones in NV however.

Future enemies will also be a challenge. If I feature cazadors, would they have originated from big MT?

2-the factions. I had an idea about a conflict between the enclave an ROA, the battle for America. Cheyenne mountain was to play a role but it appeared in a previous game didnt it? Therefore do I have the games as canon or write it as my own 'spiritual sucessor'?

That's the tricky thing.

[Tycek]

 

In all honesty tycek, it will be finished and uploaded. Getting fans and read is difficult as I believe you have seen so it'll be slow

I can't promise it'll fulfil your appetite for the older game styles or content. I know little about them if I'm honest. As I said the challenge is including the familiar but maintaining consistency with the games

Two examples, and one I already said:

1- I wrote a chapter today with the first encounter with a supermutant. I realised something. There's two types - V87 and mariposa, both different. In my story the Mutie had a captive wastelander. How does this match up to previous games? Does it contradict them? I described it as the ones in NV however.

Future enemies will also be a challenge. If I feature cazadors, would they have originated from big MT?

2-the factions. I had an idea about a conflict between the enclave an ROA, the battle for America. Cheyenne mountain was to play a role but it appeared in a previous game didnt  it? Therefore do I have the games as canon or write it as my own 'spiritual sucessor'?

That's the tricky thing.

I can see what are you talking about.

 

1. Depends if your story takes place before or after first game (F1). If it is set before then Mutants from Mariposa would catch wastelanders, steal caravans and even scourge cities to get captives, who was used to create new mutants. If it happens after F1 then Mutants from Mariposa are desorganised and usually lost. They are travelling only to look for a place to stay. They mostly run east into the mountains chased by the BoS, only to be stopped by the army of The Calculator in the midwest. Without access to FEV they don't need captives anymore.

 

Cazadores were created by Borous in Big MT. They should originate from there. You can always use different animals, like giant dragonflies for example.

 

2. Cheyenne Mountain was home for NORAD and Vault 0 respectively. It was featured in FOT as Vault 0, was suppose to be featured in VB as The Crater and was mentioned in F2 (NORAD - not responding). It all depends when your story is going to take place. Before 2197 Vault 0 - undiscovered, 2197 - 2253 - discovered, either controlled by BoS or destroyed (depends on FOT ending), after 2253 - The Crater.

 

And if you should go along the canon, that's up to you. Going with canon is a bit easier as some of the decisions were already made. You can always pick place, which wasn't featured nor mentioned in any of the games. USA is quite big and there are tons of places untouched by developers hands.

[El Dildo]

 

What's the point of role-playing if it isn't 100% realistic?

there has NEVER been a SINGLE game with 100% realistic RPG elements.

so yeah...

 

and even if there was, I bet you'd hate it.

it would be frustrating and tedious. that's the reasons most games (even military sims) aren't 100% realistic in ANY fashion because at the end of the day they're still video games. they're entertainment for the purposes of escaping reality, not reinforcing the monotony of it.

 

 

Well, that's like your opinion, man.

 

I've completed F3 three times.

LOL.

 

look, if you didn't think Fallout 3 was any fun or was getting so many things wrong, then why would you have completed it 3 different times?

I don't care that New Vegas "opened your eyes" or some nonsense, because BEFORE that you obviously enjoyed SOMETHING about F3 enough to complete 3 separate playthroughs.

[Tycek]

Nope, there weren't anything like that. First playthrough was on PS3 and without any add-ons, second one was on GoTY on Xbox (to play the add-ons I've missed before) and last one was after NV, done only to collect all the achievements I didn't get at second playthrough (Karma ones mostly) and I had to force myself to play it. I haven't touched it since.

[Mokrie Dela]

I rather enjoyed 3 myself

I suppose that might be because I never got into the old one

[El Dildo]

 

I had to force myself to play it.

you're making less sense with each post.

 

so apparently you hated the game all along, but still "forced" yourself to play through it on 3 separate occasions.

I guess you're just a masochist? it's cool. some people get really turned on by torturing themselves. nothing wrong with it

 

@ Mokrie Dela

it's not really an argument.

I'm just trying to understand why someone would play a game that they apparently didn't even enjoy... 3 times!

Edited June 2, 2013 by El_Diablo

[Mokrie Dela]

I don't see the point in turning this into and arguement. Opinions differ. I see what tycek is saying, even if I do nt personally agree. 3 and NV feel very different in many ways. I think it's always hard carrying such a story over from a 2d to a 3d platform. The game mechanics have to change but the game itself has to evolve and change. Now I enjoyed 3, I really did (apart from the ants. Gar how I hate them)

 

I'm aware of the arguement over them, although I do not fully understand it. Perhaps I should seek out he originals to see what the fuss is about and then I can judge. But on their own merits, 3 and NV are good and very good

Neither is great, because both could be much better and they're buggy. I'm certainly not going to make snide remarks about those who's opinions differ to mine anyway-what does that achieve? Instead I want to know all the reasoning Behind WHY fallout 3 is considered the black sheep, and how it differs from the hypothetical game from a other studio

 

 

All I know is the I would rather play the '3d' games like 3 and NV than the older ones because I don't enjoy the view too much... In this day and age I feel it's too restrictive. I can't step into the game or the characters shoes. It just makes me feel too distant from it, which is a shame and slightly shallow of me in a way

 

That's why I went off the Pokemon games years ago - they failed to evolve (pun intended) in my eyes, and I couldn't enjoy the isometric style camera

[Tycek]

@El_Diablo

 

You have to know something about masochism. Living in a world based mostly on written word without ability to read with comprehension must be hard.

If I already bought the game and paid 60$ for it, I thought it would be nice to get all five achievements I missed on previous playthrough. If I got them before I wouldn't even bother with playing for the third time, but if you can't understand simple fact then I feel really sorry for you.

 

Mokrie asked to cease the hostilities, so due to deep respect to him, I will be ignoring your childish attempts to start another argument.

 

@Mokrie

 

You should at least try to play the originals, they're cheap and worth completing at least once. If you love Fallout world you should of course explore almost endless possibilities of these games. They may scare you at the beggining with all their RPG options, but they are rewarding at the end. I am fully aware that graphics can be putting off, but there are resolution increasing patches on the web. And if you'll be playing F2, be sure to get F2 Restoration Patch.

 

I will understand if you won't be able to play them, though.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Tycek

[Mokrie Dela]

Yeah. I dont think i can understand the fallout 3 "situation" without playing them.

 

[Tyler]

My issue with 3 is not that it destroys or ruins the series, or that the gameplay is not turn-based. Hell, VATS is the perfect re-imagining of the turn-based combat in a first-person shooter possible. It works and it works well. However, 3 does ignore and kind of disown a lot of the previous lore that made Fallout stand out from other isometric series at the time. The world was dark. People were picking up the pieces. The landscape was lush and yet you still saw the scar tissue of nuclear war in the people and places you went. The first few Fallout games took place relatively shortly after the bombs dropped compared to 3, and yet 3 looks like it was barely nuked a few weeks before you step foot into the wasteland. It just doesn't jive with the canon, and say what you want about entitled, hardcore fans of a series, but lore and canon are kind of important in an RPG sequel.

 

Aside from the exposition issues, I found the morality system implemented to be childish. I found most of the characters and situations to be wholly superficial. That is to say that the world was beautiful (in the haunted way that it would have to be) but that beyond that facade there was little substance to take away. And once again, like it or not, Fallout gained popularity for its depth as an RPG. This is a series that explores the nature of humanity in a post-post-nuclear world. The apocalypse came and went. Society is rebuilding. It's a retrofuturistic Wild West, basically.

 

I loved New Vegas infinitely more than 3 because it delivered on some of those aspects. Choices were going in the right direction of morally competent choices on both sides. I felt like each faction had rights and wrongs about it, and in fact I found myself agreeing with the Legion more than the NCR- an opinion that is obviously not of majority. The simple fact that I can actually do that is testament to the direction of NV being decidedly more mature than 3 because in the real world there isn't a right or wrong about it. Actions have consequences and there is no moral absolute. I felt like the Brotherhood in 3 was a joke. Like some fairy tale knights of the world, altruistic and willing to kill themselves to protect the weaker man. Let's examine that: do you think a group of technocratic, homogeneous, totalitarian military grunts who trekked across the post-apocalyptic Midwest would somehow become more empathetic to the indigenous people? If you said yes, please refer to any standing army in history as it moves across any landscape for long periods of time. Rape, murder, pillage and wholesale slaughter are the norm of anxious travelers with guns. Not altruism.

 

 

Anyway, 3 is a fine game. On the surface it is quite beautiful and memorable. It just doesn't make much sense in the logic of the universe that Bethesda supposedly loved so dearly. It fails to answer questions about society in the world because it doesn't even ask them. It hands you fun weapons, gives you some good humour and pop culture, and lets you pick GOOD GUY A or EVIL DOER B. Sure, the earlier Fallouts are known and loved for their humour and fun, impractical weaponry. But both of those were not the staple of the series, they were simply additions that made an already deep and fantastic game series better.

[El Dildo]

 

if you can't understand simple fact then I feel really sorry for you.

opinions aren't facts.

you still haven't really explained why you would play something you didn't enjoy more than once....

 

also it was never an argument.

I was trying to understand you, and with every post, you've made that subsequently more difficult.

[Mokrie Dela]

My issue with 3 is not that it destroys or ruins the series, or that the gameplay is not turn-based. Hell, VATS is the perfect re-imagining of the turn-based combat in a first-person shooter possible. It works and it works well. However, 3 does ignore and kind of disown a lot of the previous lore that made Fallout stand out from other isometric series at the time. The world was dark. People were picking up the pieces. The landscape was lush and yet you still saw the scar tissue of nuclear war in the people and places you went. The first few Fallout games took place relatively shortly after the bombs dropped compared to 3, and yet 3 looks like it was barely nuked a few weeks before you step foot into the wasteland. It just doesn't jive with the canon, and say what you want about entitled, hardcore fans of a series, but lore and canon are kind of important in an RPG sequel.

 

Aside from the exposition issues, I found the morality system implemented to be childish. I found most of the characters and situations to be wholly superficial. That is to say that the world was beautiful (in the haunted way that it would have to be) but that beyond that facade there was little substance to take away. And once again, like it or not, Fallout gained popularity for its depth as an RPG. This is a series that explores the nature of humanity in a post-post-nuclear world. The apocalypse came and went. Society is rebuilding. It's a retrofuturistic Wild West, basically.

 

I loved New Vegas infinitely more than 3 because it delivered on some of those aspects. Choices were going in the right direction of morally competent choices on both sides. I felt like each faction had rights and wrongs about it, and in fact I found myself agreeing with the Legion more than the NCR- an opinion that is obviously not of majority. The simple fact that I can actually do that is testament to the direction of NV being decidedly more mature than 3 because in the real world there isn't a right or wrong about it. Actions have consequences and there is no moral absolute. I felt like the Brotherhood in 3 was a joke. Like some fairy tale knights of the world, altruistic and willing to kill themselves to protect the weaker man. Let's examine that: do you think a group of technocratic, homogeneous, totalitarian military grunts who trekked across the post-apocalyptic Midwest would somehow become more empathetic to the indigenous people? If you said yes, please refer to any standing army in history as it moves across any landscape for long periods of time. Rape, murder, pillage and wholesale slaughter are the norm of anxious travelers with guns. Not altruism.

 

 

Anyway, 3 is a fine game. On the surface it is quite beautiful and memorable. It just doesn't make much sense in the logic of the universe that Bethesda supposedly loved so dearly. It fails to answer questions about society in the world because it doesn't even ask them. It hands you fun weapons, gives you some good humour and pop culture, and lets you pick GOOD GUY A or EVIL DOER B. Sure, the earlier Fallouts are known and loved for their humour and fun, impractical weaponry. But both of those were not the staple of the series, they were simply additions that made an already deep and fantastic game series better.

That's a pretty decent break down of it. In some ways, when you mention the humanity, I feel more confident in my story. But then you mentions "good guy A and bad buy B" and my concerns return. MY story's meant to explore the polar opposites of a character.

 

The world itself though is still going to bear the scars. Look at The Divide in NV for example - that had the best post apocalyptic vibe to it in my eyes, ahead of 3 or the videos i saw of 1/2. The towns and settlements, with the exception of NV itself, were all made from scrap. Sure, after 200 years, surely someone would have figured out how to make or build bricks and cement. After such length of time, surely some rebuilding would have begun....

 

 

The exploration of humanity is an interesting approach. 3 failed on this, I can see that. NV opened it up with the various factions and affiliation. Legion were the bad guys, no doubt, but consider this: All caravans under their protection were safe. Their territory was absent of crime.

NCR were the obvious "good" guys, but they were stretched thin. Crime was high. They couldn't protect anything.

 

The BoS were the most interesting faction in my eyes in NV. In 3 they were portrayed as saviors or the wastes. In NV, I could never decide if they were "good" or "bad". My conclusion was that such a thing did not exist. The BoS was just that, the BoS. Not good, not bad. Flawed. Their beliefs and what they pursued was their problem. The lockdown...

 

That is one big difference i see between 3 and NV. Something I am trying to implement into my story. There is still the black and white good and bad, but in planning I found myself with the same question:

 

The saint, would they side themselves with the NCR type? Would they stand against the slavers?

Or would they - using NV's example - see the flaws in NCR and pursue an independent state?

 

Now the bad guy (one thing 3 did great was keep track of your acts and report them on the radio - i got a sense of reputation with that, hearing what people thought of my... that saint from 101 or that asshole....), would he side with the slavers because of profit? Or would he look deeper?

Again the BOS spring to mind. 1 good character, one bad one - which would the BoS favour? Would they fit into good or bad, or instead use the most useful? Would morality factor in?

 

All this while following the grand story arc of the characters original mission, and how it changes.

 

I'm finding writing and planning this much more complex than City of Lies and Justice in Flames put together.

 

 

[Narrow]

I personally can't understand the hatred for Fallout 3, yes it's clearly the worst of the series but it was Bethesda's first time working with the IP and let's not forget they'd never made any sort of game similar to it in the past add in the difficulty of using the Gamebyro engine to create and form a world as deep and complex as Fallout's and you're going to run into a few hurdles on your to way to finishing the final product. I'm probably one of the few that still sees Fallout 3 as a fantastic game, it's just not a good Fallout game but after playing through New Vegas for the past few years I've high hopes for the next game in the Fallout series.

 

Yes it's true that Fallout 3's moral choices and decisions are quite bland and transparent, I never once felt compelled to join the Enclave (and they pretty much destroyed all credibility that the Enclave had considering that in the lore they were completely f*cked over the Brotherhood of Steel, but for the sake of this little tangent let's ignore that piece of lore and all lore related things) as it was plainly obvious that they were pure evil. There was none of what Fallout New Vegas' factions had, which were valid reasons for doing what they did; for example Caesar's practices may have been harsh and relatively brutal but he had valid reasons and plans for doing what he did, the same goes with the totalitarian views of Mr. House and his potential rule of New Vegas.

 

However, when you compare those characters' viewpoints and actions to those of Fallout 3's rendition of the Enclave you start to see how incredibly basic Fallout 3's storyline and writing is. There is literally no reason for anyone who isn't pure evil to want to control and poison the Capital Wasteland, there may however be valid reasons for a person with a more neutral view on things to join and side with Mr. House or Caesar's Legion as once again there aforementioned practices and actions actually held a fair amount of validity as I could honestly see New Vegas and the surrounding Wasteland flourishing under the rule of Mr. House or Caesar, not so with the absolutely inane and genocidal viewpoints of John Henry Eden. The other issue that you have when you make one side pure evil, is to make sure that its opposition is equal evil or at least has a few demeaning features, but no Fallout 3's representation of the Brotherhood of Steal was pathetic as the only people who truly reminded me of the Brotherhood I loved and respected from previous games in the series were the Outcasts.

 

So yes, it is obvious that Fallout 3 doesn't do Fallout very well. However it's an amazing game if only for the sense of scale and freedom it gives the player. To someone who's never played any of the Fallouts prior to 3 it wouldn't surprise me to find that they'd think it was the best Fallout game of all time, even if they then went onto play the previous games and decided to give them the same love and attention that they did to 3, they'd still likely prefer the third game simply because it is the best game of its type. There are no other games out there at this current time that give off the atmosphere of one that's centered in the Fallout universe regardless of how they (the developers, in this case Bethesda) choose to interpret the gameworld of Fallout.