|
Dominion posted:*Changes into a suit and fancy hat, reads a magazine, drinks a bottle of scotch, does some drugs* To be fair, I too would drop the prices of whatever I was selling if someone did this in front of me.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:No Enjoy New Vegas and go back to 3 whenever for a new experience. They can compliment each other. However if Fallout 3 'Had What New Vegas Has' it would be way better. Not to say Fallout 3 was terrible, I have logged 300 hours there, but New Vegas is an improvement. Eh, I had the displeasure of playing New Vegas vanilla (no DLC, first drop, despite me knowing how buggy open-world games from Beth and Obsid tend to me), and it was pretty dull. Vegas itself was a disappointment and combat was boring, but I was on a PS3, so. Granted, I played the poo poo out of Fallout 3 and am one of those not-real fans that didn't give a poo poo about Beth ruining a beloved franchise. It's much better with DLC and mods.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 22:13
|
|
|
Well that's certainly one opinion
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 22:19
|
|
JackMackerel posted:Eh, I had the displeasure of playing New Vegas vanilla (no DLC, first drop, despite me knowing how buggy open-world games from Beth and Obsid tend to me), and it was pretty dull. Vegas itself was a disappointment and combat was boring, but I was on a PS3, so. I'm confused...did you play the poo poo out of FO3 even though it had duller combat and shittier weapons?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
JackMackerel posted:Eh, I had the displeasure of playing New Vegas vanilla (no DLC, first drop, despite me knowing how buggy open-world games from Beth and Obsid tend to me), and it was pretty dull. Vegas itself was a disappointment and combat was boring, but I was on a PS3, so. Yeah, how exactly did you like FO3 and dislike NV? They're practically the same game except one has fewer bugs and more to do. Combat is literally exactly the same in both games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
There are more sort of dungeony things in FO3, and more stand alone silly places.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
Dominion posted:Yeah, how exactly did you like FO3 and dislike NV? They're practically the same game except one has fewer bugs and more to do. Combat is literally exactly the same in both games. Interaction with the world is improved a thousandfold in New Vegas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
FO3 had the random encounters to break up the travelling. That's about the only thing it did better than NV, but a lot of people disagree. My own brother laughs at me if I dare to suggest that NV is better. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
eating only apples posted:FO3 had the random encounters to break up the travelling. That's about the only thing it did better than NV, but a lot of people disagree. My own brother laughs at me if I dare to suggest that NV is better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
Node posted:Interaction with the world is improved a thousandfold in New Vegas. The DT system wasn't perfect, but it significantly improved the combat mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
Zedd posted:Kill him,
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
Zedd posted:Kill him, bury his corpse. And then wear his hat? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
I think FO3 catches way more poo poo around here than it deserves, especially when Goons contrast it with FNV, but then lots of people around here can't talk in anything but absolutes and hyperboles so it's not a huge surprise. Someone saying that they really didn't enjoy NV while they loved the poo poo out of FO3 is a new one though. FO3 did a couple of things better than NV in my personal opinion (for one thing it had a coherent art direction and level design and it didn't feel like someone mashed 50 random places, each created by a different person, together in a huge world map), but you undeniably get more game for your buck with FNV if only because it makes multiple playthroughs a lot more viable and ... well it actually gives you a reason to play it more than once. I suppose if you really, really find the mojave setting of FNV so absolutely boring that you cannot stand playing in that environment I can see why you might enjoy FO3 more than FNV, but other than that FNV just gives you much more to do and, again, gives you more 'game'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
YOURFRIEND posted:I dunno about you, but I can totally see Lanius sitting around and reading economic primers in his spare time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 23:06
|
|
|
eating only apples posted:And then wear his hat? Wear his head as a hat. There's good points to both NV and FO3; i much more enjoyed the setting of FO3, NV felt very very barren, which is in one side, understandable, but the other, made it feel very boring sometimes. On the other, combat in NV felt much better than 3 - for one you can actually use iron sights and hit the broad side of a barn, and the VATS system is not the end all option. I dislike the music in NV - never bothered tuning into radio there beyond listening to the cobra commander sounding mutant from time to time. They're both decent games, but in the end I did actually 'complete' fallout 3, whereas I think i quit really playing NV around the time i murdered most of the factions wholesale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
I enjoyed both games for what they were... though I'll be honest, I have yet to finish FNV or do any of its DLC beyond Dead Money whereas I've done everything one can do in FO3. I'm really hoping the DLC is better beyond Dead Money because I really didn't enjoy it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
Burning Mustache posted:I think FO3 catches way more poo poo around here than it deserves, especially when Goons contrast it with FNV, but then lots of people around here can't talk in anything but absolutes and hyperboles so it's not a huge surprise. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved FO3 and played the poo poo out of it. But NV is everything FO3 was plus more, with the bugs fixed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
Naky posted:I enjoyed both games for what they were... though I'll be honest, I have yet to finish FNV or do any of its DLC beyond Dead Money whereas I've done everything one can do in FO3. I'm really hoping the DLC is better beyond Dead Money because I really didn't enjoy it. They're all radically different from each other and I found DM was the hardest one to keep me motivated enough to keep going (other people will disagree wildly, naturally), Honest Hearts was similar (in that it didn't really motivate me to keep following its storyline, especially with the character I was playing at the time) but you can find a funny way to end it reasonably early (which I did on my first run) and OWB and Lonesome Road were just absolutely awesome for me (in completely different ways, no less). Give the others a try, I'm fairly sure you'll enjoy at least some of the others a lot even if you didn't like DM (or maybe especially if you didn't like DM). Dominion posted:Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved FO3 and played the poo poo out of it. But NV is everything FO3 was plus more, with the bugs fixed. And I agree with that, I'm just saying that I think there's a couple of things FO3 did better than NV and that they play so similarly that I really hate how much poo poo it gets around here sometimes. Burning Mustache fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Nov 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 23:22
|
|
|
Sloober posted:Wear his head as a hat. That's taking the idea of the Vexillarius Helmet a little too far... Sloober posted:I dislike the music in NV - never bothered tuning into radio there beyond listening to the cobra commander sounding mutant from time to time. Now this I just cannot accept  I listen to the NV soundtrack on a regular basis, both the radio tracks and the incidental music, some of which is really nice. I'm crazy about the whole wild west thing the music has got going on. Also, Big Iron is literally my most played song ever. I don't know how that happened, I guess I just can't get enough of that handsome ranger. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
eating only apples posted:That's taking the idea of the Vexillarius Helmet a little too far... New Vegas soundtrack is great, it just could use more variety. Big Iron et al. are great songs, but you still don't want to hear each one every 15 minutes. E: VVV Oh yeah, I suppose that could be the case. Smol fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Nov 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
There are actually more songs (songs, not just instrumentals) in NV than there are in FO3. The issue is that they're split up over more radio stations, there's not just the single (proper) station.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
Also, due to bugs, a few songs play twice as often as the others, giving the impression that the songs are repeating all the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 23:44
|
|
|
Burning Mustache posted:FO3 did a couple of things better than NV in my personal opinion (for one thing it had a coherent art direction and level design and it didn't feel like someone mashed 50 random places, each created by a different person, together in a huge world map). Are you sure you don't have that backwards? I mean, if there's one thing Fallout 3 is absolutely better about than New Vegas its level design, but, uh, 'coherent' isn't what I would describe it as. In New Vegas each town not only fits generally on a minimap of that area of Nevada, but it will have some tie to the plot: Nelson has been taken by Legion, Primm is under NCR control, etc. In Fallout 3, comic book villain town is next to the Republic of Dave is next to the caves filled with a society of children is near where they built a town around a live nuclear bomb. Literally every area is "lol wouldn't it be cool if" with no thought given to how it fits together.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
yeah, if you laid out fallout 3's map on a table, there would be some scattered ruins of DC at the bottom, and the rest of the map would look like someone just dumped settlements and landmarks around at random I mean, the idea is that you can go any which way and find "content" (whereas in NV, if you wandered into the wilderness, you would probably find more wilderness), but it also meant that the world felt incoherent and unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
Fallout 3 was a lot more depressing. There's hardly anyone around, and every group you encounter is a small one barely hanging on. Everything feels dead. New Vegas, on the other hand, abounds in settlements, population, and activity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
LLCoolJD posted:Fallout 3 was a lot more depressing. There's hardly anyone around, and every group you encounter is a small one barely hanging on. Everything feels dead. New Vegas, on the other hand, abounds in settlements, population, and activity. honestly, the main quest of Fallout 3 felt pointless because of this. If DC was uninhabitable, why bother trying to inhabit it? What's wrong with the area dying out and moving elsewhere? The whole point of the Purity thing seemed to be saving DC purely because of it's pre-war significance, which seems like a waste of time. (not even mentioning how cleaning radiated water is actually pretty easy and can be done with a charcoal filter)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
re: honest hearts I think the best way to play it is to spend your time exploring with follows-chalk before doing any of the quests; it's much more fun to explore and learn the story of the survivalist than it is to obliterate the white legs
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 23:58
|
|
|
For everyone that got New Vegas on the Thanksgiving sale: you're not fully experiencing it until you listen to this while playing 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
Fallout 3 was denifitively more atmospheric wasteland-wise, and the story was an odd mix between the first and second games. I do miss DC and the whole hopelessness of the area, but I wouldn't trade any of it from anything we got in NV.Fag Boy Jim posted:cleaning radiated water is actually pretty easy and can be done with a charcoal filter Who's to say the G.E.C.K. wasn't just a very large charcoal filter?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 00:04
|
|
|
Burning Mustache posted:FO3 did a couple of things better than NV in my personal opinion (for one thing it had a coherent art direction and level design and it didn't feel like someone mashed 50 random places, each created by a different person, together in a huge world map) Did you get the two games mixed up because I'd like to hear how FO3 isn't 50 random places mashed together. I mean there's some coherency in the DC area where it's based off actual geography but otherwise you have "over here there's an apartment building that's pristine and undamaged, despite the land around it being flattened...here's two people living under a highway, that's a town, right? gently caress it, here's some fire ants...lets just cram Republic of Dave in the top right corner so it's nowhere near any trade routes...lets have vampires over here. Whatever" It's not like that stopped me from enjoying FO3 but it seems silly to say that the layout had more thought in it than New Vegas, which has stuff like the Legion encroaching over the river, a road linking most of the major towns, several suburbs around Vegas itself, and is actually based on real places for the most part. More than that though, people and quests in New Vegas constantly reference other places. The guy at Mojave Outpost is terrified to know the Legion have burned down that town because it means the Legion are pushing in further than everyone thought. If you take care of all the Fiend leaders bothering Camp McCarran, the recon team actually moves to Camp Forlorn Hope to reinforce them. The brotherhood is actually scouting out other places rather than sitting in the bunker wondering what the NCR is doing. There's a lot of connected poo poo going on, compared to the Captial Wasteland where nobody would even notice if you nuked Republic of Dave into glass
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
I think Bethesda are good at creating good looking landscapes and F3 does look nicely post-apocalyptic at times, but I feel it's sorta off-set by how little sense everything makes in the game. Plus, the combat encounters makes everything feel much less... desolate than it should. There are times where I could stand on a high spot, look in each direction and in each direction there'd be some random critters skuttling about, or a Protectron wandering aimlessly or what have you. It's just... no. I know some people enjoyed that F3 had more single combat encounters when traveling but that was one thing that I was *so* glad that they got rid of in NV in favor for the more structured monster habitats. I think it's fair to say (without necessarily comparing quality or anything) that Fallout 3 is closer to an Elder Scrolls game type of design while New Vegas is closer to the Fallout of old type of design. A huge generalization of course but I think you can compare it like that roughly speaking. Both games are obviously now open-world first-person a'la Elder Scrolls, but F3 had more focus on that "finding dungeons", exploring the world type of mentality and with most content sort of (not completely) crammed into one playthrough. Whereas New Vegas is more about interactions with the game-world and having different ways to solve things. But yeah, I think one of the things that hurt F3 the most (again, aside from me personally feeling that it moved away quite a lot from being Fallout) is how little sense it all makes. Both as a self-contained game and as a part of the Fallout license.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 00:20
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:Are you sure you don't have that backwards? Cicadalek posted:Did you get the two games mixed up because I'd like to hear how FO3 isn't 50 random places mashed together. Ok I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here; I meant "more coherent art direction" more in an aesthetic sense than story / gameplay related. The point I was trying to make is that, aesthetically, FNV kind of seems like a mash-up of 50 different user created mods with different people creating different areas of the wasteland and different armors / clothes, weapon models, etc. while FO3 seemed to have a pretty clear art direction with areas blending into each other a lot better than in FNV. FO3 had the better, more (aesthetically) believable 'wasteland' feeling in my opinion. I completely agree that the gameworld in FNV 'works' a lot better and makes a lot more sense than FO3's in terms of storyline. EDIT: Though thinking back about it, I didn't find the story or the gameworld (now in terms of story mechanics) nearly as bad as a lot of people here make it out to be either so there's that. No doubt Obsidian put a lot more effort into that aspect with NV though, but, in my opinion, even in that respect FO3 isn't even close to the abomination people make it out to be. Burning Mustache fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Dec 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
So I was an idiot and forgot to buy FNV when it was on sale via Steam. Do you think it will go on sale again before Christmas?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
xgalaxy posted:So I was an idiot and forgot to buy FNV when it was on sale via Steam. Do you think it will go on sale again before Christmas? I'd say there is about a 99% chance there will be, the only thing potentially holding it back is the release of the Ultimate Edition which they may be hoping to make extra sales from.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 00:39
|
|
|
Burning Mustache posted:Ok I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here; I meant "more coherent art direction" more in an aesthetic sense than story / gameplay related. I don't really understand that either, though, since they share so many art assets. None of the art direction made me think "what the gently caress is THIS doing here". The different wasteland areas look natural to me since they're based on real-world vegas locations for the most part. All the clothing is either homemade or salvaged, which makes sense for the post-apocalyptic western theme. You've got your cowboy guns and your future guns and your contemporary guns and I'm not sure how any of them could seem out of place aesthetically. Basically the problem here is that I like the game too much and also no one is allowed to disagree with me
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 00:54
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:I'd say there is about a 99% chance there will be, the only thing potentially holding it back is the release of the Ultimate Edition which they may be hoping to make extra sales from. Even if it's not going on sale, it's worth waiting for the Ultimate edition to release, because it will probably be cheaper than buying the game+all DLC at full price currently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
I like that Vault 11 is a joke to wander through at level 26 because the story is great. Those last couple of lines from the vault computer are, and I don't say this lightly, delivered perfectly. Also, the Great Khans had an unwelcome visitor for dinner. There's something rather amusing about them all carrying on with dinner while heads are exploding around them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
Blunt Force Trauma posted:Even if it's not going on sale, it's worth waiting for the Ultimate edition to release, because it will probably be cheaper than buying the game+all DLC at full price currently. Word is the Ultimate edition will be $40, so less than it is now, but much more than it was on sale for last week. I would be a little surprised to see it on sale at Christmas after being up for Thanksgiving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 01:47
|
|
|
Blunt Force Trauma posted:Even if it's not going on sale, it's worth waiting for the Ultimate edition to release, because it will probably be cheaper than buying the game+all DLC at full price currently. The best option will likely be to buy it during the Christmas sale. At -75% off (the discount during the Summer and Autumn sale daily deals), the price of the base game plus all DLCs adds up to $16.5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Cicadalek posted:I don't really understand that either, though, since they share so many art assets. None of the art direction made me think "what the gently caress is THIS doing here". The different wasteland areas look natural to me since they're based on real-world vegas locations for the most part. All the clothing is either homemade or salvaged, which makes sense for the post-apocalyptic western theme. You've got your cowboy guns and your future guns and your contemporary guns and I'm not sure how any of them could seem out of place aesthetically. The guns are pretty disjointed, especially the non-energy weapons. Like 75% of them are directly modeled on real guns then you'll run into something like the 10/12.5mm pistols and suddenly woah it's five times the size and covered in bullshit. Exact same thing was going on in FO2 where they threw everything and the kitchen sink into the weapons listings, but since you didn't have the guns sticking in your face 24/7 it wasn't as noticeable. You get sorta the same thing with raiders/Fiends all wearing six-inch spikes and electric tape nipple pasties lined up against guys like Caesar's Legion or the Khans or Boomers, the art direction between games was totally different and clashed badly. This is because FO3's direction was dumb and terrible, ofc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 01:55
|
|
