Why I still prefer Fallout 3 to New Vegas

I felt this was a safe forum to post this thread on without a stupid flame war erupting.

I wanted to know if anyone felt the same way as me about this.

I've been playing New Vegas a lot and now have 2 and a half playthroughs done, about 100 hours in total. After this short amount of time, I feel like I've seen everything the game has to offer. Most map markers are hugely disappointing, consisting of shacks with nothing but an empty bottle, a campfire on a hill, an airport terminal with nothing but two cases of caps and some radscorpions, a few caves with not a single piece of loot or backstory in them... it feel so empty compared to the Capital Wasteland which had something new, unique and interesting over every hill.
There are sweet fuck all large, dungeon like areas to explore.

There are no huge, detailed interiors like Nuka Cola Plant, Capital Building, Red Racer Factory, Springvale Elementary, Roosevelt Academy, The museums of History and Tech, National Archives, LOB Industries, Hubris comics... this was my favorite part of fallout 3 and all we have in New Vegas are a few vaults, 4 Casinos, Repcomm and an empty sewer. Very disappointing.

The dialogue and writing are much better in NV and sure, there are more quests but most of them just involve 'travel to point A talk to 'x', watch long loading screen, travel back'. F3 had less quests but the ones it had were amazing and much longer... Reily's Rangers, Tranquility Lane, Oasis, Take It Back, The Superhuman Gambit, Wasteland Survival Guide, Stealing Independance, Trouble On The Homefont... all great. New Vegas had the Vault quests which were fantastic but none of the others were (to me) as memorable.

Doing the Camp McCarran and Freeside quests is horrible because of the excruciating load times. So much going in and out of areas and they don't even give us travel points inside the Strip and McCarran which is just bizarre. The load times are twice as long as they were in F3 too.

And then there's the atmosphere... Fallout 3 was haunting, beautiful and soulful. Standing on a ruined flyover watching the sun set over the burnt out forests and ruined Washington monument was just sublime. Nothing in Vegas gave me that same feeling or immersed me in its atmosphere like f3 did at any given moment. Just sand, sand, red rocks and more sand.

Now don't get me wrong... I still love New Vegas more than 99% of games and there are areas it improves over F3. Better combat, better dialogue, better sound, better characters and story. But to me it falls short of its big brother in many areas. I went back to the Capital Wasteland this week and was surprised how much better it looked, felt and played.

Does anyone agree? Or do you think NV s the better of the two?

I agree NV doesn't have a lot of the environments Fallout 3 offered and there is little variation in that regard too.

I completely agree about the loading times, I became extremely annoyed at them at times.

Although, I do enjoy the faction system and the large amount of quests in New Vegas.

EDIT:

On that note, if they could combine the depth and detail of New Vegas with the variety of Fallout 3 we would have a much better game.

Shall we hope for that in the next installment of the Fallout Series?

Demented Teddy wrote:I agree NV doesn't have a lot of the environments Fallout 3 offered and there is little variation in that regard too.

I completely agree about the loading times, I became extremely annoyed at them at times.

Although, I do enjoy the faction system and the large amount of quests in New Vegas.

EDIT:

On that note, if they could combine the depth and detail of New Vegas with the variety of Fallout 3 we would have a much better game.

Shall we hope for that in the next installment of the Fallout Series?

Damn straight...

Bethesda's world building, Obsidian's writing (don't let them near the actual coding) and a new engine. Best game ever!

Demented Teddy wrote:
Shall we hope for that in the next installment of the Fallout Series?

FUCKING
ELDER
SCROLLS
V
FIRST

If another Fallout comes out before it, I'm going to camp outside Bethsidianmaxwhatever until it comes out.
And occasionally throw rocks at them.

OT: The main difference between 3 and New Vegas for me was the instant immersion. It took me until my fourth playthrough to get as properly into 3 as it did for me to get into Oblivion and New Vegas, which were both instant. In New Vegas I really felt like I had a purpose, a place to start. Fallout 3 just felt kind of...vague. There's nothing wrong with that, but I always felt the game didn't really know what to do. Now, I like being left to my own devices, but the gentle nudges that NV made made it feel a lot more...game-ish to me, rather than a survival simulator.

Plus, 3 was fucking depressing, especially with Godflesh in the background. I have GOT to stop listening to that band while playing games. I know you like the whole hauntingly epic vibe or whatever, but the only time I ever got that from Bethesda was the Ayleid ruins in Oblivion. To me 3 just felt empty and samey. NV was a lush, colour...ed...y...glory.

As for the epic sprawling buildings thing, that just pissed me off. They felt a lot more aimless than the big dungeons in Oblivion. I spent half my game time in 3 backtracking and getting killed because I couldn't find my way out. I know that's an essential part of the game but it got fucking tiring after a while. Which is the main reason I abandoned 3 for a long time.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great game. Some of the quests ARE better. But for me, the majority of NV quests are better, if only because they have a sense of humor (Atomic Wrangler missions, Beyond The Beef (which is my favourite quest since Whodunit? from Oblivion)) and a lot more.

In all, I prefer New Vegas, simply because it's...well, it's bigger, more colourful, and as light-hearted as Fallout gets. 3 was good, but...it was just a little much at times.

I still think Fallout NV is better, but I suppose that's mainly because I played the original 2 to death.

In the original 2, it was all isometric, 2d shapes. There wasn't any huge sense of scale generated by the graphics or level design, because there couldn't be, it was too limited. The sense of limitless potential was generated by the writing, the lore and the little touches that gave the impression of a fully fleshed out world. I've always been a fan of RPG's and point and clicks that give the impression of so much more beyond the game world by intelligent writing.

Now don't get me wrong, I thought Fallout 3 was great, a great game overall, but it didn't have that same feeling of a whole world waiting beyond the horizon as the originals did.
I didn't like Fallout 3's writing at all, to be honest. I didn't pick a single companion, and I picked all my moral choices based on what would give me the most reward, not how I actually felt about it. I still had fun exploring and looting and all that, but when it came to actually talking to people, I found it very stale.

However, Fallout New Vegas does have that feeling. Technology wise, it's much the same as Fallout 3, but it could look like the original Wasteland game from 1988 for all I care, the writing's excellent.
Every place I go has some character I know I'll remember later on in it, it fits perfectly with established lore in the way Fallout 3 didn't (Seeing the NCR, a huge empire after it being a small settlement in Fallout 2 gave a great sense of the passing of time). Far from not picking any companions, I instead got mods and picked all of them, simply because they were so interesting.

I think I might have actually cried at Boone's story.

I find the combat in New Vegas has been much improved also. More meaty, and visceral, and I like the new guns, along with the unique weapons and modpacks.

Also, NV has Danny Trejo and Dave Foley in it. Granted, FO3 had Liam Neeson, but he wasn't in it enough.

Unabletothinkofname wrote:Beyond The Beef (which is my favourite quest since Whodunit? from Oblivion)

Oh yeah, that was brilliant. Mine culminated in a mass casino shootout. Heck Gunderson joined in and all.

Highlight was Mortimer getting the drop on me and Raul caving his head in with his lead pipe.

Unabletothinkofname wrote:
ELDER
SCROLLS
V
FIRST

If another Fallout comes out before it, I'm going to camp outside Bethsidianmaxwhatever until it comes out.
And occasionally throw rocks at them.

You know they've announced TESV right? It's coming out in November!

Unabletothinkofname wrote:

Don't get me wrong, it's a great game. Some of the quests ARE better. But for me, the majority of NV quests are better, if only because they have a sense of humor (Atomic Wrangler missions, Beyond The Beef (which is my favourite quest since Whodunit? from Oblivion)) and a lot more.

In all, I prefer New Vegas, simply because it's...well, it's bigger, more colourful, and as light-hearted as Fallout gets. 3 was good, but...it was just a little much at times.

Yeah I can certainly see why a lot of people prefer New Vegas. I guess that it all comes down to what thrills you more in a game, the exploration side or the story side. still think the mojave is a better place to hang out than most game worlds, it just doesn't draw me in the same the CW does.

By the way, Beyond The Beef - what an awesome quest. It was just perfect. Best mission in the game. And Vault 11 was really intense and emotional... I actually felt genuine fear and dread as I walked down that corridor.

Furburt wrote:
In the original 2, it was all isometric, 2d shapes. There wasn't any huge sense of scale generated by the graphics or level design, because there couldn't be, it was too limited. The sense of limitless potential was generated by the writing, the lore and the little touches that gave the impression of a fully fleshed out world. I've always been a fan of RPG's and point and clicks that give the impression of so much more beyond the game world by intelligent writing.

One thing F1, 2 and NV have over 3 is that they feel much more alive and full of activity. I agree that NV's world is more fleshed out in many areas, but when it comes to the physical, visual storytelling Bethesda is the king (well... Half Life 2 is the king but F3 is close second) As I said in the post above, it's just down to preference I guess.

One nice little touch in New Vegas was the shack in the super mutant village where there had been a fatal card game. I'm sure you found it too, a great little scene that was- I wished there had been more of that kind of stuff.

Furburt wrote:


I think I might have actually cried at Boone's story.

Yeah, it was very sad. I hated him until he came out with that bombshell, suddenly I felt guilty anytime I sent him back to Novac, I wanted to stay with him so he didn't feel all alone.

Furburt wrote:
I find the combat in New Vegas has been much improved also. More meaty, and visceral, and I like the new guns, along with the unique weapons and modpacks.

Agree with that 100%. Even the 10MM pistol sounds awesome in NV. The only thin I hate about NV's combat is the shitty iron sights on the Cowboy Repeater ( and getting stuck in VATS).

miracleofsound wrote:
You know they've announced TESV right? It's coming out in November!

I know. I came.

miracleofsound wrote:

Yeah I can certainly see why a lot of people prefer New Vegas. I guess that it all comes down to what thrills you more in a game, the exploration side or the story side. still think the mojave is a better place to hang out than most game worlds, it just doesn't draw me in the same the CW does.

By the way, Beyond The Beef - what an awesome quest. It was just perfect. Best mission in the game. And Vault 11 was really intense and emotional... I actually felt genuine fear and dread as I walked down that corridor.

Vault 11 was fucking fantastic, even if I failed about 6 times, even with the cheat console. The first time the

Spoiler:

walls started opening, I literally screamed with fright. It was even worse when the fucking protrectrons came out and one-shotted me.

Beyond the Beef was one of my favourites, defo. I replayed it about a dozen times just to get all the different outcomes.

Furburt wrote:snip

Can you tell me Boone's story? I don't really care, TBH, no interest in using him anymore.

Lol, u fanboy. U just cant acept the fackt that Obsdiian make better games than Bethesa.

Honestly though, I don't know which one I think is better, because the same thing happened to New Vegas which has happened to me with every Bethesda game ever.

They're never memorable to me. At all. They're great fun while they last, but once over, there's no trace of what I enjoyed so much left. The intrigue, fascination, all disappears after a while.

And I can't even remember what I felt when the intrigue and fascination where still there. Playing a Bethesda game is an enjoyable experience, but it's ultimately empty and shallow.

In some of my favorite RPG's, like The Witcher or Dragon Age: Origins (Or hell, even Knights of the Old Republic 2. APPRECIATE IT), when an area is out of juice, you move on. Done everything in chapter 2? Watch the story unfold in Chapter 3! Settled the dispute in Orzammar? Feel free to go visit the Dalish elves next!

See, for me, RPG's can sometimes be too non-linear in terms of narrative. An incredibly open world is nice as a time-sink, but the pacing is fucking god-awful, and therefore memorability is lost.

This might sound strange, but I think Bethesda should try and implement a little of what the Dead Rising games have. Timers on quests. No small timers, but maybe 3 days between having to complete quest B after completing quest A.

I think this could be an interesting idea because no matter how hard you work, eventually an open world is going to feel shallow, and carrying on with doing missions simply because you're bored with everything else doesn't really get you into the mood. There's also the problem of free-roaming and exploring areas that will be featured in quests before even getting said quests, making them more tedious and uninteresting.

Of course, there are always issues with that. People will get incredibly frustrated if they miss a deadline and have to start the game over to complete the main quest, and unlike with Dead Rising, restarting the story with all your stats left isn't exactly going to make people all that happy. But if you want to have a huge open-world game then some measures need to be taken to ensure that there is proper pacing in the entire story.

Other alternatives could be for the game to force you to complete a quest-chain once you've started it, only letting you stop at certain pauses within the quest story.

But I've talked a lot of bullshit now. Point is, none of the games are really all that memorable to me. If I had to choose, based solely on technicalities as the general feeling of the games is gone, I'm going with New Vegas. The main story didn't suck, and... well, that's it really.

Oh, and there's Boone. I like Boone.

miracleofsound wrote:

One thing F1, 2 and NV have over 3 is that they feel much more alive and full of activity. I agree that NV's world is more fleshed out in many areas, but when it comes to the physical, visual storytelling Bethesda is the king (well... Half Life 2 is the king but F3 is close second) As I said in the post above, it's just down to preference I guess.

One nice little touch in New Vegas was the shack in the super mutant village where there had been a fatal card game. I'm sure you found it too, a great little scene that was- I wished there had been more of that kind of stuff.

I think maybe it's just a difference between how some people enjoy games. Because I was raised on point and clicks and the like, where the graphics tend to be pretty bogstandard and the areas small, my sense of immersion comes about through the people and writing. You seem to get it more through the visuals, level design and sound and all that. Nothing can really change that, but I suppose it's good that there's Fallout games for each type of person.

The only thin I hate about NV's combat is the shitty iron sights on the Cowboy Repeater ( and getting stuck in VATS).

Mods mods mods

Keep an eye out for the Le Longue Carbine. Cowboy repeater with a scope, basically.

Hubilub wrote:Lol, u fanboy. U just cant acept the fackt that Obsdiian make better games than Bethesa.

Honestly though, I don't know which one I think is better, because the same thing happened to New Vegas which has happened to me with every Bethesda game ever.

They're never memorable to me. At all. They're great fun while they last, but once over, there's no trace of what I enjoyed so much left. The intrigue, fascination, all disappears after a while.

And I can't even remember what I felt when the intrigue and fascination where still there. Playing a Bethesda game is an enjoyable experience, but it's ultimately empty and shallow.

Weird, whenever I play a Bethesda game, I can't stop thinking about it for ages after I've played it. Hell, I've got a little New Vegas highlights reel playing in my head whenever I'm away from the computer.

The Witcher is ser gutt though. Combat felt a bit strange, so I modded it up, and now it's good.

Furburt wrote:

The Witcher is ser gutt though. Combat felt a bit strange, so I modded it up, and now it's good.

I didn't have a problem with the combat. It's fun to see Geralt do a bunch of pirouettes while I just click a mouse-button.

Also, what people said where true: The Witcher has the most intuitive, well thought-out, brilliant karma system ever made for a game.

Hubilub wrote:
I didn't have a problem with the combat. It's fun to see Geralt do a bunch of pirouettes while I just click a mouse-button.

Also, what people said where true: The Witcher has the most intuitive, well thought-out, brilliant karma system ever made for a game.

It felt kind of sluggish for my tastes. Thankfully, the mod spruced it up without changing the essential feel of it, so all's well.

I think I might put it in Hungarian, for the craic.

Furburt wrote:

Hubilub wrote:
I didn't have a problem with the combat. It's fun to see Geralt do a bunch of pirouettes while I just click a mouse-button.

Also, what people said where true: The Witcher has the most intuitive, well thought-out, brilliant karma system ever made for a game.

It felt kind of sluggish for my tastes. Thankfully, the mod spruced it up without changing the essential feel of it, so all's well.

I think I might put it in Hungarian, for the craic.

I want to read the books now.

They seem spicy and hawt.

Hubilub wrote:
I want to read the books now.

They seem spicy and hawt.

Wow, putting it in Hungarian actually makes it a hell of a lot more immersive.

I think I'll put it in Polish, seeing as that's the language it's written in.

And yes, the books are supposed to be good. I want to read Metro 2033.

Furburt wrote:

Hubilub wrote:
I want to read the books now.

They seem spicy and hawt.

Wow, putting it in Hungarian actually makes it a hell of a lot more immersive.

I think I'll put it in Polish, seeing as that's the language it's written in.

And yes, the books are supposed to be good. I want to read Metro 2033.

It is?

Hurray! No longer will I have to put up with mediocre english voice-acting. Second playthrough, here I come.

Hubilub wrote:
It is?

Hurray! No longer will I have to put up with mediocre english voice-acting. Second playthrough, here I come.

Plus, the landscape looks all Eastern Europey.

Still, I won't get the satisfaction of all the well timed swearing reminding me that this is a mature RPG.

Furburt wrote:

Hubilub wrote:
It is?

Hurray! No longer will I have to put up with mediocre english voice-acting. Second playthrough, here I come.

Plus, the landscape looks all Eastern Europey.

Still, I won't get the satisfaction of all the well timed swearing reminding me that this is a mature RPG.

It does have some good "fuck" moments.

And you get to smex people.

Hubilub wrote:
It does have some good "fuck" moments.

And you get to smex people.

Eh, me withchez mod not werking.

Furburt wrote:



I think maybe it's just a difference between how some people enjoy games. Because I was raised on point and clicks and the like, where the graphics tend to be pretty bogstandard and the areas small, my sense of immersion comes about through the people and writing. You seem to get it more through the visuals, level design and sound and all that. Nothing can really change that, but I suppose it's good that there's Fallout games for each type of person.

Yep. The fun for me in Fallout, Oblivion, Dragon Age etc is the living and existing in a different world, the whole Escapism part of it. 'Yay, I'm on an adventure and I can go wherever I want and do whatever I want... awesome!' Plus I'm an absolute sucker for exploration. Love it more than anything.

Furburt wrote:

Mods mods mods

Believe me, if I could afford a gaming PC I'd buy one. I'm getting very jealous of you guys and you mods and fast loading times.

Furburt wrote:
Keep an eye out for the Le Longue Carbine. Cowboy repeater with a scope, basically.

I'd feel far to mean stealing it from that nice old First Recon man. He tells me stories!

Hubilub wrote:Lol, u fanboy. U just cant acept the fackt that Obsdiian make better games than Bethesa.

Honestly though, I don't know which one I think is better, because the same thing happened to New Vegas which has happened to me with every Bethesda game ever.

They're never memorable to me. At all. They're great fun while they last, but once over, there's no trace of what I enjoyed so much left. The intrigue, fascination, all disappears after a while.

And I can't even remember what I felt when the intrigue and fascination where still there. Playing a Bethesda game is an enjoyable experience, but it's ultimately empty and shallow.

Completely the opposite for me Hub, I can't stop thinking about Beth games when i'm playing them and after I finish them. They get right under my skin and I get totally obsessed.

And your timer idea is something that if it were ever implemented I would actually cry. I never had a problem with the pacing in them, if you want the pace to feel urgent you can just choose to play through the quests urgently.

Just wondering, did Dead Money make you feel any differently?

The reason I ask is because the whole time I was playing it, I kept saying to Robert, "Oh, I think Miracle's gonna love this. Look at all these little story things you can find. Look at all these secret little stashes. It's like one giant explorable building. This is right up his alley."

As for which I like better, I don't honestly know, that's how close the two are. I saw you were playing 3 again, and was thinking about asking you if it felt different now, after NV. I'd like to play 3 again, but I think I'd play it much differently than NV. For one, like Furburt said, I don't think I could pick up any companions. They would just seem so lifeless compared to the companions in NV. Not only that, but Dead Money's companions practically blow the regular NV companions out of the water in terms of personality. And one of them is a mute! They really pack a lot of story punch into that little DLC.

But I do think I really liked the setting of 3 better. This may be a feeling I get simply because I'm from the States, but D.C. is simply put, a better place to explore in the Fallout setting. I'll try to explain. Vegas is a city that changes every 10 years. They make so much money on the strip, they are always tearing down old buildings and putting newer better ones up. It looks nothing like the Vegas of the 50s. So for me, there is nothing really familiar about the Fallout New Vegas. None of the buildings that are there are ones I can visit. City names are the same as some in Nevada, but that isn't quite the same thing as what Fallout 3 has going for it.

D.C. is one of the older cites in the U.S. Much of what D.C. looks like now, particularly on Capitol Hill, that's what it looked like in the 50s. If you ever visit D.C., and take a Fallout tour, you'll see what I mean. The detail in 3, it's like they went around D.C., took pictures of everything, and then made the scale model for the game. The little mine littered path around the Lincoln Memorial? That's there in real life, sans mines of course.

Because of that, it makes the emotional punch of seeing D.C. in Fallout all the more powerful. For me, taking an iconic setting and destroying it, that makes it all the more haunting to play in. New Vegas, it doesn't have that because they can't really do a Luxor pyramid in New Vegas. It would break the immersion to see something modern.

Which is why I think it would be facinating if they moved Fallout over seas, or even south to Mexico. The cities in Europe, and in Mexico, some of them are so old, the architecture is considered historic and would never be torn down. You could have that same ghostly feeling because you'd be walking through, oh let's say the Louvre, looking at the Mona Lisa. Or Fallout Florence, where you could go to the Accademia di Belle Arti and see David. C'est Magnifique!

Anyway, I ramble on.

meganmeave wrote:Just wondering, did Dead Money make you feel any differently?

The reason I ask is because the whole time I was playing it, I kept saying to Robert, "Oh, I think Miracle's gonna love this. Look at all these little story things you can find. Look at all these secret little stashes. It's like one giant explorable building. This is right up his alley."

You're absolutely right, I loved that part of Dead Money. Really great environmental storytelling going on there, although let's be honest.... the Villa environment got a bit tedious towards the end. I was glad to get to the Casino bit!

meganmeave wrote:

As for which I like better, I don't honestly know, that's how close the two are. I saw you were playing 3 again, and was thinking about asking you if it felt different now, after NV. I'd like to play 3 again, but I think I'd play it much differently than NV. For one, like Furburt said, I don't think I could pick up any companions. They would just seem so lifeless compared to the companions in NV. Not only that, but Dead Money's companions practically blow the regular NV companions out of the water in terms of personality. And one of them is a mute! They really pack a lot of story punch into that little DLC.

Well, I never used companions in fallout 3 in the first place because I hate babysitting mortal NPCs. But yeah, it feels very different to go back and play it again now. In both good and bad ways.

The guns don't feel as meaty and it sucks not having ADS.

BUT.... Fallout 3's environments are soooo much better looking and everything is better layed out, from the way light shines through holes in the ceiling, to the way objects are arranged around areas, to the way no two places feel the same ( except the subways but even some of those have thier little unique secrets)..... even the placing of lights is better and how most interiros in F3 have a wonderful tenebrism effect.

Then again.... dialogues feel lacking compared to NV, and it doesn't feel as alive. Plus the lack of colour can be depressing in places ( Rivet City interiror is just ugly as hell)

meganmeave wrote:
But I do think I really liked the setting of 3 better. This may be a feeling I get simply because I'm from the States, but D.C. is simply put, a better place to explore in the Fallout setting. I'll try to explain. Vegas is a city that changes every 10 years. They make so much money on the strip, they are always tearing down old buildings and putting newer better ones up. It looks nothing like the Vegas of the 50s. So for me, there is nothing really familiar about the Fallout New Vegas. None of the buildings that are there are ones I can visit. City names are the same as some in Nevada, but that isn't quite the same thing as what Fallout 3 has going for it.

D.C. is one of the older cites in the U.S. Much of what D.C. looks like now, particularly on Capitol Hill, that's what it looked like in the 50s. If you ever visit D.C., and take a Fallout tour, you'll see what I mean. The detail in 3, it's like they went around D.C., took pictures of everything, and then made the scale model for the game. The little mine littered path around the Lincoln Memorial? That's there in real life, sans mines of course.

A Fallout tour of DC would be awesome. I wonder if anyone hasactually organised one

meganmeave wrote:
Because of that, it makes the emotional punch of seeing D.C. in Fallout all the more powerful. For me, taking an iconic setting and destroying it, that makes it all the more haunting to play in. New Vegas, it doesn't have that because they can't really do a Luxor pyramid in New Vegas. It would break the immersion to see something modern.

Which is why I think it would be facinating if they moved Fallout over seas, or even south to Mexico. The cities in Europe, and in Mexico, some of them are so old, the architecture is considered historic and would never be torn down. You could have that same ghostly feeling because you'd be walking through, oh let's say the Louvre, looking at the Mona Lisa. Or Fallout Florence, where you could go to the Accademia di Belle Arti and see David. C'est Magnifique!

Anyway, I ramble on.

I guess maybe someday Fallout will move away from America but I think the fans would go crazy if it did now, seeing as such a big part of its appeal is its love letter to the American dream and 50s culture.

It would be awesome though to find out what happened the rest of the world!

Furburt wrote:

Hubilub wrote:
I want to read the books now.

They seem spicy and hawt.

Wow, putting it in Hungarian actually makes it a hell of a lot more immersive.

I think I'll put it in Polish, seeing as that's the language it's written in.

And yes, the books are supposed to be good. I want to read Metro 2033.

's a good book - a few minor translation conventions go unheeded in the English version, very occasional grammar slip-ups, but largely faithful to the Russian

I really enjoyed it, but my one complaint would be that at times it felt like he'd fogotten "show not tell" - he basically imagined a movie in his head and described what was going on. That's what I do when I write, but whether it's the translation or the way Russian works - sometimes it feels like a slog of "this happened this happens that will happen"

GrinningManiac wrote:

Furburt wrote:

Hubilub wrote:
I want to read the books now.

They seem spicy and hawt.

Wow, putting it in Hungarian actually makes it a hell of a lot more immersive.

I think I'll put it in Polish, seeing as that's the language it's written in.

And yes, the books are supposed to be good. I want to read Metro 2033.

's a good book - a few minor translation conventions go unheeded in the English version, very occasional grammar slip-ups, but largely faithful to the Russian

I really enjoyed it, but my one complaint would be that at times it felt like he'd fogotten "show not tell" - he basically imagined a movie in his head and described what was going on. That's what I do when I write, but whether it's the translation or the way Russian works - sometimes it feels like a slog of "this happened this happens that will happen"

I want the book, give me it

miracleofsound wrote:

You're absolutely right, I loved that part of Dead Money. Really great environmental storytelling going on there, although let's be honest.... the Villa environment got a bit tedious towards the end. I was glad to get to the Casino bit!

Oh god yes. Particularly those invisible red speakers. I spent the last half of my scrounging running to keep my head intact. I loathe the collar and it's exploration hindering properties.

Well, I never used companions in fallout 3 in the first place because I hate babysitting mortal NPCs. But yeah, it feels very different to go back and play it again now. In both good and bad ways.

The guns don't feel as meaty and it sucks not having ADS.

BUT.... Fallout 3's environments are soooo much better looking and everything is better layed out, from the way light shines through holes in the ceiling, to the way objects are arranged around areas, to the way no two places feel the same ( except the subways but even some of those have thier little unique secrets)..... even the placing of lights is better and how most interiros in F3 have a wonderful tenebrism effect.

Then again.... dialogues feel lacking compared to NV, and it doesn't feel as alive. Plus the lack of colour can be depressing in places ( Rivet City interiror is just ugly as hell)

It is a lovely game. Very desolate. And you are right, there are far more little touches put into 3, with all the little shacks full of untold stories. I often thought Bethesda assigned grids to people. Each "set" designer was in charge of a grid. They knew the setting, and were given free reign to create scenes that told stories throughout their grid. I've wondered this because it seems as if ever location has something to tell, as well as some random unmarked places.

Perhaps New Vegas suffers from such a short development cycle?

A Fallout tour of DC would be awesome. I wonder if anyone has actually organised one

As you know, I gave myself an impromptu one. But it would be awesome if there were an actual one. There are a few places I couldn't really go. But maybe a proper tour would get permission.

I guess maybe someday Fallout will move away from America but I think the fans would go crazy if it did now, seeing as such a big part of its appeal is its love letter to the American dream and 50s culture.

It would be awesome though to find out what happened the rest of the world!

I never really thought of it that way, but you are right. Everything has that American 50's thing. I wonder what they could do to make that work.

It would be cool though. But a very different game without all that American 50's style of architecture and clothing. I think I could get used to it.

Furburt wrote:I still think Fallout NV is better, but I suppose that's mainly because I played the original 2 to death.

In the original 2, it was all isometric, 2d shapes. There wasn't any huge sense of scale generated by the graphics or level design, because there couldn't be, it was too limited. The sense of limitless potential was generated by the writing, the lore and the little touches that gave the impression of a fully fleshed out world. I've always been a fan of RPG's and point and clicks that give the impression of so much more beyond the game world by intelligent writing.

Now don't get me wrong, I thought Fallout 3 was great, a great game overall, but it didn't have that same feeling of a whole world waiting beyond the horizon as the originals did.
I didn't like Fallout 3's writing at all, to be honest. I didn't pick a single companion, and I picked all my moral choices based on what would give me the most reward, not how I actually felt about it. I still had fun exploring and looting and all that, but when it came to actually talking to people, I found it very stale.

However, Fallout New Vegas does have that feeling. Technology wise, it's much the same as Fallout 3, but it could look like the original Wasteland game from 1988 for all I care, the writing's excellent.
Every place I go has some character I know I'll remember later on in it, it fits perfectly with established lore in the way Fallout 3 didn't (Seeing the NCR, a huge empire after it being a small settlement in Fallout 2 gave a great sense of the passing of time). Far from not picking any companions, I instead got mods and picked all of them, simply because they were so interesting.

I think I might have actually cried at Boone's story.

I find the combat in New Vegas has been much improved also. More meaty, and visceral, and I like the new guns, along with the unique weapons and modpacks.

Also, NV has Danny Trejo and Dave Foley in it. Granted, FO3 had Liam Neeson, but he wasn't in it enough.

I'm gonna have to go with this. But I'd like to add one thing. People actually remember what you do, and comment on it. I can't describe how happy this makes me. I travel along, overhear a conversation about how some guy cleaned out a Legion Camp. And I get all giddy and go "That was me! I did that!!"

Its just so great. Makes me feel like my decisions mean something. Which is in direct contrast to Fallout 3, where you can blow up Megaton and nobody except Karma-Dog and your Dad seem to notice.

I actually didn't like the atmosphere in 3. It just felt swo stae, the Brotherhood were cockbags, and having such a "good"group of people just made it shit. The story was 80 times worse, and the "moral choices" were a joke. Only one that meant shit was the Tenpenny Building, and I murdered all the ghouls anyway, the cunts.

GrinningManiac wrote:

I really enjoyed it, but my one complaint would be that at times it felt like he'd fogotten "show not tell" - he basically imagined a movie in his head and described what was going on. That's what I do when I write, but whether it's the translation or the way Russian works - sometimes it feels like a slog of "this happened this happens that will happen"

Actually, that might be something to do with Russian. I used to be quite big into Russian literature, and I've noticed a lot are written in that kind of manner. I hear Russian's quite a cold language, if you know what I mean, so maybe they just talk descriptively?

They certainly did in The Master and Margarita, anyway.

That was a strange book.

meganmeave wrote:


Oh god yes. Particularly those invisible red speakers. I spent the last half of my scrounging running to keep my head intact. I loathe the collar and it's exploration hindering properties.

God they were annoying, That final 30 minutes was the least fun I've ever had in a modern Fallout.

BEEP ... BEEP ...BEEP ...BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEBEEBEEBEEBEBEE BEBEBEBEBEBEBBEBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE :-0 SPLAT

It is a lovely game. Very desolate. And you are right, there are far more little touches put into 3, with all the little shacks full of untold stories. I often thought Bethesda assigned grids to people. Each "set" designer was in charge of a grid. They knew the setting, and were given free reign to create scenes that told stories throughout their grid. I've wondered this because it seems as if ever location has something to tell, as well as some random unmarked places.

Perhaps New Vegas suffers from such a short development cycle?

Maybe. or maybe Obsidian are just better at the storytelling side of things.

I never really thought of it that way, but you are right. Everything has that American 50's thing. I wonder what they could do to make that work.

It would be cool though. But a very different game without all that American 50's style of architecture and clothing. I think I could get used to it.

Yeah it would be great. i wonder what London looked like in the 50s? Actually it would probably look like that new Mass effect 3 trailer.

Uh oh...

HUURGHG
AAAAAAAAAAA MASS EFFECT 3 aAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Ahem.

miracleofsound wrote:

Yeah it would be great. i wonder what London looked like in the 50s? Actually it would probably look like that new Mass effect 3 trailer.

Uh oh...

HUURGHG
AAAAAAAAAAA MASS EFFECT 3 aAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Ahem.

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG!

MASS EFFECT 3!!!!!11!!

How fucking awesome is it the trailer takes place in London?! We're coming back to Earth bitches!

One thing I prefered in New Vegas was the fact that the news didn't revolve around the player character, it added to the realism and the feel that there is more to the world then your character.

Demented Teddy wrote:One thing I prefered in New Vegas was the fact that the news didn't revolve around the player character, it added to the realism and the feel that there is more to the world then your character.

I also liked that. Plus, Mr. New Vegas, though just as repetitive as Three Dog, was much less annoying to listen to.

Since someone brought it up. Here's a list of notable voice actors in New Vegas. A much more impressive list than it's predecessor.

Ron Perlman - Narrator
Wayne Newton - Mr. New Vegas
Matthew Perry - Benny
Rene Auberjonois - Mr. House
Danny Trejo - Raul
William Sadler - Victor
Felicia Day - Veronica
Michael Dorn - Marcus
Zach Levi - Arcade
Kris Kristofferson - Chief Hanlon

Was there anyone of note besides Perlman and Liam Neeson in FO3? I'll go look that up.

Edit: Malcolm McDowell as Eden in FO3, but no one else of note.

The were a lot of good voices in New Vegas. But there was one missing.

Where the hell is Harold?! I surely hope he makes an appearance in DLC somewhere, or perhaps someone wrote a mod to include him. I know he's a tree now, but they've manage to contrive a way to include Harold in all the Fallouts so far. Surely they can think of something...

Wait, Benny was played by Chandler off Friends? Mr House was played by the priest in MASH? Victor was played by Colonel Stuart in Die Hard 2? Chief Hanlon was played by fucking Kris Kristofferson ?

And I have a newfound respect for Zach Levi, knowing he played Arcade.

I wish I knew any of those other than Benny and Raul. :/

We need a game full of semi-famous metal musicians.

Wait, Boone was played by... this guy?



... It all makes sense now

Furburt wrote:Wait, Benny was played by Chandler off Friends? Mr House was played by the priest in MASH? Victor was played by Colonel Stuart in Die Hard 2? Chief Hanlon was played by fucking Kris Kristofferson ?

And I have a newfound respect for Zach Levi, knowing he played Arcade.

Blew my mind.

meganmeave wrote:

miracleofsound wrote:

Yeah it would be great. i wonder what London looked like in the 50s? Actually it would probably look like that new Mass effect 3 trailer.

Uh oh...

HUURGHG
AAAAAAAAAAA MASS EFFECT 3 aAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Ahem.

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG!

MASS EFFECT 3!!!!!11!!

How fucking awesome is it the trailer takes place in London?! We're coming back to Earth bitches!

And we're going to fuck those reapers up and save the universe! and sleep with all the team-mates because that's JUST AS IMPORTANT!

meganmeave wrote:The were a lot of good voices in New Vegas. But there was one missing.

Where the hell is Harold?! I surely hope he makes an appearance in DLC somewhere, or perhaps someone wrote a mod to include him. I know he's a tree now, but they've manage to contrive a way to include Harold in all the Fallouts so far. Surely they can think of something...

He's currently spreading out across the state of Washington. At least in my game he is anyway.