Fallout: New Vegas: Ain't that a cuck in the bed?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Fallout: New Vegas: Ain't that a cuck in the bed?

Fintilgin: Sep 29, 2004; Fintilgin sweeps!

Wolfsheim posted:

Yeah, I love Obsidian and all but I don't think there was any conspiracy against it via Bethesda. I've talked to several people who loved Fallout 3 who just "couldn't get into New Vegas" and I think its (as I've gone into detail on before) because New Vegas is too smart for its own good, doesn't instantly gratify the player, and has more numerous and subtle choices than "save the town for free" versus "HAHA gently caress THE TOWN KILL THEM ALL."

Yeah, I think New Vegas is ten times the game F3 is, and vastly more of a 'Fallout' game, but at the same time I can see people who got into the franchise with F3 being confused and put off by it. Which is ironic and depressing somehow, but understandable.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 19:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 17:56

Captain Oblivious: Oct 12, 2007; I'm not like other posters

Tubgirl Cosplay posted:

Maybe a bunch of critics noted that at root it's mostly identical to FO3, the early game with Goodsprings etc. is pretty weak especially compared to FO3's vault reveal, and the most obvious stuff it added gameplay-wise either took a long time to find or was incremental fine-tuning like making the gunplay a bit less tedious and adding hardcore mode. Critics generally don't have dozens of hours to spend exploring a game when they review it or examine things in a vacuum; they get an early impression, compare it to its competition (FO3, dedicated FPSes), write a couple paragraphs and pick a number. I doubt most of 'em played much past Nipton, once, and it'd be easy from that to conclude that it's a glorified mod or expansion pack being shoveled out at full-game price like so many other games are. It got a pretty good score for a game that didn't change much technically or visually from its predecessor.

I think calling New Vegas mostly identical to FO3 is more than a little bit dishonest. A game is more than just it's graphical engine.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 19:11

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

Tubgirl Cosplay posted:

Yah maybe everyone is so stupid they actively hate good things and a bad metascore is actually sign that something is more good

OR

Maybe a bunch of critics noted that at root it's mostly identical to FO3, the early game with Goodsprings etc. is pretty weak especially compared to FO3's vault reveal, and the most obvious stuff it added gameplay-wise either took a long time to find or was incremental fine-tuning like making the gunplay a bit less tedious and adding hardcore mode. Critics generally don't have dozens of hours to spend exploring a game when they review it or examine things in a vacuum; they get an early impression, compare it to its competition (FO3, dedicated FPSes), write a couple paragraphs and pick a number. I doubt most of 'em played much past Nipton, once, and it'd be easy from that to conclude that it's a glorified mod or expansion pack being shoveled out at full-game price like so many other games are. It got a pretty good score for a game that didn't change much technically or visually from its predecessor.

That's what I meant by 'instant gratification'

# ? Apr 19, 2012 19:46

7c Nickel: Apr 27, 2008

I've been thinking about why I like Fallout 3 more than New Vegas lately. The best way to put it that I've come up with is that Bethesda know how to build with legos way better than Obsidian does. By that I mean Bethesda is really good at producing a game that's fun to explore out of generic parts. I can remember tons of interesting locations/vistas/sight gags produced only with generic assets.

By contrast Pretty much everything interesting enough to remember from New Vegas was done with a custom art asset. Filling an entire map like that just isn't feasible so you end up with a lot of incredibly bland stuff in between.

It shouldn't be a surprise that Bethesda does this kind of thing better. This is what they've spent years learning how to do. It's just kind of a square peg, round hole kind of situation.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 19:46

Merry Magpie: Jan 8, 2012; A superstitious cowardly lot.

7c Nickel posted:

I've been thinking about why I like Fallout 3 more than New Vegas lately. The best way to put it that I've come up with is that Bethesda know how to build with legos way better than Obsidian does. By that I mean Bethesda is really good at producing a game that's fun to explore out of generic parts. I can remember tons of interesting locations/vistas/sight gags produced only with generic assets.

By contrast Pretty much everything interesting enough to remember from New Vegas was done with a custom art asset. Filling an entire map like that just isn't feasible so you end up with a lot of incredibly bland stuff in between.

It shouldn't be a surprise that Bethesda does this kind of thing better. This is what they've spent years learning how to do. It's just kind of a square peg, round hole kind of situation.

Could you provide an example of what you mean? My last playthrough of F3 visited and cleared every single location in the game. None of them spring to mind except for the Rube Goldberg machine.

F3's complete and utter lack of signposting meant there is "a lot of incredibly bland stuff in between" because the game world is so flat and barren.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 20:01

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Merry Magpie posted:

Could you provide an example of what you mean? My last playthrough of F3 visited and cleared every single location in the game. None of them spring to mind except for the Rube Goldberg machine.

F3's complete and utter lack of signposting meant there is "a lot of incredibly bland stuff in between" because the game world is so flat and barren.

They actually did a pretty good job in Fallout 3 of having a few random segments of the gameworld with no particular mechanical benefit look shockingly pretty. Bethesda's got people whose job it is to come up with vast swathes of wasteland and make bits and pieces look pretty as hell. Obsidian has people whose job it is to make locations look pretty as hell. It's the one thing I'll freely concede Bethesda did right in Fallout 3- there's some drat pretty random wasteland out there.

By contrast, if it's not an ingame special location in New Vegas, it is the Mojave Desert. 98% probability of sand with a chance of scrubgrass.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 20:14

7c Nickel: Apr 27, 2008

I'm not sure what to tell you if you can't remember anything about the map in Fallout 3. I haven't played the game in years but I can still remember lots of little details about locations.

Let's take the area in front of super duper mart as an example.

You've got got the river in front of you snaking towards the city. Since you're on the outskirts right now the banks of the river are starting to transition towards concrete blocks. There's a bridge to your left that leads to the other side near the Chryslus Motors building. If you walk along the bank you're on you can find that outdoor cafe that where those mirelurk hunters live. Looking across the river There's a subway entrance, a stairs leading down to a small wooden dock.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 20:18

Tubgirl Cosplay: Jan 10, 2011; by Ion Helmet

Captain Oblivious posted:

I think calling New Vegas mostly identical to FO3 is more than a little bit dishonest. A game is more than just it's graphical engine.

The mechanics are mostly identical too - VATS-assisted combat not quite up to par with dedicated FPSes, simple RPG skillchecks, identical item crafting, open-world exploration of a whole lotta desert. Refined, certainly, utilized better, absolutely, but we're dealing with pretty drat fine distinctions in the context of dudes whose job is to be playing a Starcraft clone one week and Call of Duty the next and assess both on the same scale. The point is critical reviews are generally based on very quick initial impressions by people who spend their time playing the first half of every game that comes out - that's not a knock against them, just pointing out that critics are coming from a certain perspective (where most of the poo poo NV added wouldn't be a big deal) and are not big Fallout nerds or the voice of God judging a work and finding it unworthy. Seriously, if you read Metascore as an objective scale of goodness and don't understand critics' biases and methodologies I imagine you wind up very unhappy with your purchases a good amount of the time.

Tubgirl Cosplay fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Apr 19, 2012

# ? Apr 19, 2012 20:18

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Ze Pollack posted:

By contrast, if it's not an ingame special location in New Vegas, it is the Mojave Desert. 98% probability of sand with a chance of scrubgrass.

On the one hand this is true, on the other hand there are a lot of special locations:

contrast to Fallout 3: (and keep in mind New Vegas's map is smaller too)

# ? Apr 19, 2012 20:21

Wolfsheim: Dec 23, 2003; "Ah," Ratz had said, at last, "the artiste."

Merry Magpie posted:

Could you provide an example of what you mean? My last playthrough of F3 visited and cleared every single location in the game. None of them spring to mind except for the Rube Goldberg machine.

F3's complete and utter lack of signposting meant there is "a lot of incredibly bland stuff in between" because the game world is so flat and barren.

To be fair, every few hundred feet in Fallout 3 you're probably going to run into a random scripted event (no matter how weird or out of place, like a group of ghouls trying to get into Tenpenny Tower somewhere in the northeastern corner of the map) that cultivates the "things are happening" idea. But really that's all scripted stuff too so I don't know if it really 'counts.'

computer parts posted:

On the one hand this is true, on the other hand there are a lot of special locations:

contrast to Fallout 3: (and keep in mind New Vegas's map is smaller too)

Eh, I dunno. I could spend days talking about how much better NV is, but this is a little disingenuous. A lot of those locations are just stopping points for a quest, like the caravan wreckage spots for Cass's personal quest or all those ranger stations needed for that one NCR quest where you just update the codes at each. Most Fallout 3 locales have at least a little more going on, be it a cute little random event or more than a quest waypoint.

Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Apr 19, 2012

# ? Apr 19, 2012 20:36

Merry Magpie: Jan 8, 2012; A superstitious cowardly lot.

7c Nickel posted:

I'm not sure what to tell you if you can't remember anything about the map in Fallout 3. I haven't played the game in years but I can still remember lots of little details about locations.

Let's take the area in front of super duper mart as an example.

You've got got the river in front of you snaking towards the city. Since you're on the outskirts right now the banks of the river are starting to transition towards concrete blocks. There's a bridge to your left that leads to the other side near the Chryslus Motors building. If you walk along the bank you're on you can find that outdoor cafe that where those mirelurk hunters live. Looking across the river There's a subway entrance, a stairs leading down to a small wooden dock.

I recall that area. The river you are referring to is the Potomac, the only river in the game. It is a custom asset.

I do not see how it is an example of "interesting locations/vistas/sight gags."

computer parts posted:

On the one hand this is true, on the other hand there are a lot of special locations:

contrast to Fallout 3: (and keep in mind New Vegas's map is smaller too)

This is pretty much my argument. There is no signposting in F3 so most of those locations will never be seen by the player base. There is a lot of empty ground in the Washington wasteland.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 20:39

7c Nickel: Apr 27, 2008

Merry Magpie posted:

I recall that area. The river you are referring to is the Potomac, the only river in the game. It is a custom asset.

I do not see how it is an example of "interesting locations/vistas/sight gags."

This is pretty much my argument. There is no signposting in F3 so most of those locations will never be seen by the player base. There is a lot of empty ground in the Washington wasteland.

What? The river isn't a custom asset. It's made up of the same generic water plane as every other instance of water in the game.

The point is that that UNMARKED location is more interesting than half of the ones on the New Vegas map. One of those marks consists of a single rusted out trailer with a fizzling radio and some scrap metal.

7c Nickel fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Apr 19, 2012

# ? Apr 19, 2012 20:56

Merry Magpie: Jan 8, 2012; A superstitious cowardly lot.

7c Nickel posted:

What? The river isn't a custom asset. It's made up of the same generic water plane as every other instance of water in the game.

The point is that that UNMARKED location is more interesting than half of the ones on the New Vegas map. One of those marks consists of a single rusted out trailer with a fizzling radio and some scrap metal.

By "transition towards concrete blocks," I believe you refer to wall that lines the river. It is a custom asset for the river. I honestly have no idea what a wall that lines a river is called.

The New Vegas location you are referring to must be the Lone Wolf radio station, a small area that relays the story of one survivor. He gathered together a jury-rigged set of radio equipment and spent days, months, perhaps even years trying to reach other survivors. Judging by the increasingly desperate writing on the walls, he eventually despaired and abandoned the search. This is tragic.

The Fallout 3 location you refer to is a bridge over a river and a lone woman, Sparkle, who sits in a shack within walking distance of a raider hideout. It actively sabotages its own world-building.

I genuinely do not understand what you're talking about. Please explain.

Edit: For clarity. Also, for dictionaries. A man-made wall that lines a river would be an embankment.

Merry Magpie fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Apr 19, 2012

# ? Apr 19, 2012 21:19

7c Nickel: Apr 27, 2008

Jesus, you think a retaining wall in a city built on a river is a custom asset.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 21:30

Merry Magpie: Jan 8, 2012; A superstitious cowardly lot.

7c Nickel posted:

Jesus, you think a retaining wall in a city built on a river is a custom asset.

Wouldn't a retaining wall require a slope?

And unless I am incorrect, the wall is not used anywhere else except by the river thus it is a custom asset.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 21:33

Cream-of-Plenty: Apr 21, 2010; "The world is a hellish place, and bad writing is destroying the quality of our suffering."

SplitSoul posted:

You could make it a sort combination of the old and the new system of travel. Have large clusters of inhabited areas surrounded by wasteland, make travel between those clusters sort of like the transition between the main worldspace and DLC worldspace is now, via a caravan or something, with the option of traversing it in a vehicle in real-time. Doing that could net you some special encounters, like giant mutant bats swooping in to gently caress up your day.

I know this is from a few pages ago, but I would like to trademark this idea, because I suggested it a long time ago when New Vegas was still a twinkle in Josh Sawyer's eye. Don't make a single, large sandbox, make a bunch of DLC-sized areas that you fast-travel between, not unlike the navigation system from FO1 and FO2.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 21:41

Merry Magpie: Jan 8, 2012; A superstitious cowardly lot.

Cream-of-Plenty posted:

I know this is from a few pages ago, but I would like to trademark this idea, because I suggested it a long time ago when New Vegas was still a twinkle in Josh Sawyer's eye. Don't make a single, large sandbox, make a bunch of DLC-sized areas that you fast-travel between, not unlike the navigation system from FO1 and FO2.

Do they have to be "DLC-sized?" I am a bit tired of being nickel and dimed at every turn.

Honestly, the game you're describing is Kingdoms of Amalur. It suffers from severe disconnection between areas.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 21:43

SheepNameKiller: Jun 19, 2004

Merry Magpie posted:

This is pretty much my argument. There is no signposting in F3 so most of those locations will never be seen by the player base. There is a lot of empty ground in the Washington wasteland.

In all fairness, those areas aren't necessarily empty on the FO3 map, they're just unmarked. There were a lot more unmarked areas to discover in FO3 than NV.

It's debatable whether or not this would stop players from actually exploring them, it stands to reason that players would travel from marker to marker but you can get around that by placing interesting stuff in the planes between commonly used markers.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 21:46

Merry Magpie: Jan 8, 2012; A superstitious cowardly lot.

SheepNameKiller posted:

In all fairness, those areas aren't necessarily empty on the FO3 map, they're just unmarked. There were a lot more unmarked areas to discover in FO3 than NV.

It's debatable whether or not this would stop players from actually exploring them, it stands to reason that players would travel from marker to marker but you can get around that by placing interesting stuff in the planes between commonly used markers.

Going by the wikia, there are 48 unmarked locations in New Vegas and 65 unmarked locations in Fallout 3. It's comparable, but you are correct.

My argument against Fallout 3 is the lower concentration and the lack of signposting. There is literally no means in-game of finding most of these locations short of expending a perk at level 20+ or wandering for hours through an empty barren expanse.

Fallout New Vegas, by virtue of having coherent world-building has roads for people to travel on. These roads cross the Mojave and make it significantly easier to parcel off the map into smaller areas. This is a massive boon for explorers like me.

As an example, have you ever tried giving directions to someone in Fallout 3? Example: From Megaton to Tenpenny, go southwest from Megaton until you hit a tower.

Compare with directions from Goodsprings to Nipton: Hang a right out of Goodsprings down the road until you see two giant guys shaking hands. Hang a left on the road and you'll hit Nipton.

It feels more natural in New Vegas.

Merry Magpie fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Apr 19, 2012

# ? Apr 19, 2012 21:53

Cream-of-Plenty: Apr 21, 2010; "The world is a hellish place, and bad writing is destroying the quality of our suffering."

Merry Magpie posted:

Do they have to be "DLC-sized?" I am a bit tired of being nickel and dimed at every turn.

Honestly, the game you're describing is Kingdoms of Amalur. It suffers from severe disconnection between areas.

Wait...what? I said DLC-sized, not DLC, dummy. The idea is that you make, say, 7 or 8 separate worldspaces--some as small as Dead Money and some as large as OWB--and then have an FO1/2-style worldmap to travel between each worldspace, allowing time to pass by and random encounters to be implemented much easier.

The game I'm describing isn't strictly "Kingdoms of Amalur", though. A lot of games have that system. Including the dick-kicking awesome Ukranian "Precursors" and, to a slightly different extent, the STALKER series.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 21:53

Merry Magpie: Jan 8, 2012; A superstitious cowardly lot.

Cream-of-Plenty posted:

Wait...what? I said DLC-sized, not DLC, dummy. The idea is that you make, say, 7 or 8 separate worldspaces--some as small as Dead Money and some as large as OWB--and then have an FO1/2-style worldmap to travel between each worldspace, allowing time to pass by and random encounters to be implemented much easier.

The game I'm describing isn't strictly "Kingdoms of Amalur", though. A lot of games have that system. Including the dick-kicking awesome Ukranian "Precursors" and, to a slightly different extent, the STALKER series.

Let me be frank. If you use the term "DLC-sized," I will guarantee an executive somewhere will imagine a means of monetizing it that way and selling the game piecemeal. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you, but I am fine with using "smaller."

The idea does work better in a sci-fi game like Precursors since each world wouldn't necessarily have to fit thematically with the rest.

I don't really see the connection to STALKER though. Could you expand upon the point?

# ? Apr 19, 2012 22:00

SheepNameKiller: Jun 19, 2004

The idea of real time travel between areas just sounds horrible, the last thing fallout needs is some weird mako rover mechanic.

The fast travel between DLC thing isn't really inherently bad but what's the point, tons of games already do it and it has always been considered inferior to having a larger world. Plus it seems like a major renovation that Bethesda wouldn't need in its games since they already sell really well using an open world.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 22:06

Cream-of-Plenty: Apr 21, 2010; "The world is a hellish place, and bad writing is destroying the quality of our suffering."

Merry Magpie posted:

Let me be frank. If you use the term "DLC-sized," I will guarantee an executive somewhere will imagine a means of monetizing it that way and selling the game piecemeal. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you, but I am fine with using "smaller."

It is already too late. Somewhere, J.E. Sawyer is sitting in a cave and has already disseminated my idea into DLC-sized bites.

Merry Magpie posted:

I don't really see the connection to STALKER though. Could you expand upon the point?

In STALKER, the whole game is broken up into a bunch of smaller worldspaces, rather than a single, giant sandbox (a la Oblivion or Fallout 3 + NV). These areas are connected by a PDA map, similar to the FO1/FO2 style Pipboy map. Each game has implemented means of "unlocking" new parts of the map by progressing through the story-line.

While that would hurt Fallout's tradition of, "You can go wherever you want the minute the game starts," I'm sure there are ways to allow all areas to be available but undiscovered. That is, you can open your Pipboy map and pick a cardinal direction to leave your current area, but you don't know if you'll discover any locations...unless, of course, you've played the game already. Exactly like Fallout 1 and 2.

SheepNameKiller posted:

The idea of real time travel between areas just sounds horrible, the last thing fallout needs is some weird mako rover mechanic.

The fast travel between DLC thing isn't really inherently bad but what's the point, tons of games already do it and it has always been considered inferior to having a larger world. Plus it seems like a major renovation that Bethesda wouldn't need in its games since they already sell really well using an open world.

Who said anything about real time travel? Time would just progress ultra-fast, simulating a realistic distance between locations. Exactly like Fallout 1 and 2.

EDIT: Oh, I see who you were referring to. Nevermind.

Cream-of-Plenty fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Apr 19, 2012

# ? Apr 19, 2012 22:07

Lord Lambeth: Dec 7, 2011

MrL_JaKiri posted:

Monkey Island
Half Life Source
Serious Sam

spring to mind, but it's unlikely with an RPG.

Half life source still looks like rear end though. Maybe when that black mesa mod comes out you can use that as an example.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 22:09

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

7c Nickel posted:

One of those marks consists of a single rusted out trailer with a fizzling radio and some scrap metal.

well obviously Obsidian did a good job since it's so memorable. :v:

# ? Apr 19, 2012 22:14

Merry Magpie: Jan 8, 2012; A superstitious cowardly lot.

Cream-of-Plenty posted:

It is already too late. Somewhere, J.E. Sawyer is sitting in a cave and has already disseminated my idea into DLC-sized bites.

No, not my nickels and dimes! Wait, why is Mr. Sawyer sitting in a cave?

Cream-of-Plenty posted:

In STALKER, the whole game is broken up into a bunch of smaller worldspaces, rather than a single, giant sandbox (a la Oblivion or Fallout 3 + NV). These areas are connected by a PDA map, similar to the FO1/FO2 style Pipboy map. Each game has implemented means of "unlocking" new parts of the map by progressing through the story-line.

While that would hurt Fallout's tradition of, "You can go wherever you want the minute the game starts," I'm sure there are ways to allow all areas to be available but undiscovered. That is, you can open your Pipboy map and pick a cardinal direction to leave your current area, but you don't know if you'll discover any locations...unless, of course, you've played the game already. Exactly like Fallout 1 and 2.

Honestly, I still prefer a larger contiguous world map simply because it allows greater freedom for the player. I am not saying your suggestion couldn't be tailored to a game, but Fallout has always been about having an open world filled with unknown dangers and secrets.

The "unlocking" aspect feels like it could be counter to that.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 22:14

SheepNameKiller: Jun 19, 2004

Cream-of-Plenty posted:

Who said anything about real time travel? Time would just progress ultra-fast, simulating a realistic distance between locations. Exactly like Fallout 1 and 2.

EDIT: Oh, I see who you were referring to. Nevermind.

Yeah I was referring to SplitSoul's add to his statement, not yours. The problem with the idea though is that development hours will always cause the last few sections to feel incomplete and there aren't many people who enjoy fast traveling back to earlier areas, so you end up with a situation like Dead Island where the first act is great and the rest slowly get less and less impressive.

I cannot think of a game that uses this system that is an exception to this, even the old golden games that used hub systems like Gothic 2 which were packed with content ended up having a final act that was merely more than a conclusion.

The advantage to Bethesda games is that you can have a 6 or 7 hour game to satisfy people who do nothing but play the main quest but when you are done with it you still have A LOT more to explore in the game world. Railroading people into a series of areas as you progress would just cause the game design to switch to a more linear focus, earlier areas would receive more attention to satisfy focus groups, and before you know it you have something that's totally outside of what made Bethesda famous in the first place.

I don't necessarily think that what you're suggesting is un-fallout-like, since you're basically just saying do a 3d version of how the map worked in fallout 1 and 2. I just think that it wouldn't be well received by fans of the existing franchise.

SheepNameKiller fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Apr 19, 2012

# ? Apr 19, 2012 22:14

Merry Magpie: Jan 8, 2012; A superstitious cowardly lot.

SheepNameKiller posted:

Yeah I was referring to SplitSoul's add to his statement, not yours. The problem with the idea though is that development hours will always cause the last few sections to feel incomplete and there aren't many people who enjoy fast traveling back to earlier areas, so you end up with a situation like Dead Island where the first act is great and the rest slowly get less and less impressive.

There was nothing "slow" about the nosedive that game took once you reached the second area.

1. Loads of fast enemies capable of spawning behind you/above you. Poor sound design so that you have no forewarning.
2. An almost complete removal of vehicles for the second act forcing the player to traverse narrow corridors between areas.
3. A mandatory sewer level.
4. An abhorrent story which I find both exploitative towards women and absurdly stupid.

SheepNameKiller posted:

The advantage to Bethesda games is that you can have a 6 or 7 hour game to satisfy people who do nothing but play the main quest but when you are done with it you still have A LOT more to explore in the game world. Railroading people into a series of areas as you progress would just cause the game design to switch to a more linear focus, earlier areas would receive more attention to satisfy focus groups, and before you know it you have something that's totally outside of what made Bethesda famous in the first place.

Have you played the main quest in Fallout 3? It suffers from extremely poor game design and railroading.

Merry Magpie fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Apr 19, 2012

# ? Apr 19, 2012 22:21

SheepNameKiller: Jun 19, 2004

Merry Magpie posted:

Have you played the main quest in Fallout 3? It suffers from extremely poor game design and railroading.

Yeah but I'm not really talking about the MQ, I'm talking about the world design. Almost all of the stuff worth exploring in Fallout 3 existed outside of the bounds of the main quest, so the game itself wasn't linear, although it did offer a large linear segment of gameplay.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 22:25

Cream-of-Plenty: Apr 21, 2010; "The world is a hellish place, and bad writing is destroying the quality of our suffering."

Merry Magpie posted:

Have you played the main quest in Fallout 3? It suffers from extremely poor game design and railroading.

I think he means "railroading" in the sense that you are forced into one area after another, with little room for deviation. Even though the FO3 main quest was terrible, you could still get out and wander around a bit before continuing to the next part of the story.

SheepNameKiller posted:

I don't necessarily think that what you're suggesting is un-fallout-like, since you're basically just saying do a 3d version of how the map worked in fallout 1 and 2. I just think that it wouldn't be well received by fans of the existing franchise.

This is exactly what I'm suggesting, because it is closer to FO1 and FO2, and circumvents the feeling of all locations being so close to each other. I know it would bother existing fans, but gently caress them. Most of them are dipshits, anyway. :colbert:

Cream-of-Plenty fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Apr 19, 2012

# ? Apr 19, 2012 22:26

Merry Magpie: Jan 8, 2012; A superstitious cowardly lot.

Cream-of-Plenty posted:

I think he means "railroading" in the sense that you are forced into one area after another, with little room for deviation. Even though the FO3 main quest was terrible, you could still get out and wander around a bit before continuing to the next part of the story.

Ah, I think I understand. There is nothing necessarily forcing the player to pursue the main quest.

When I read "railroading," an image popped up in my head of Little Lamplight. Everything in that section of the game could be skipped and nothing would be lost.

# ? Apr 19, 2012 22:29

Ockhams Crowbar: May 7, 2007; Always the simplest solution.

I got into Fallout while I was waiting for Skyrim to come out; I had spent obscene amounts of time wandering around Oblivion, and needed something to tide me over. All I knew about Fallout 3 and New Vegas was that Bethesda was involved in some capacity, and the save/load menus looked pretty identical to Oblivion. That's what sold me, really.

I played FO3 first, but always found myself preferring New Vegas for the map and scenery. Not that I don't appreciate FO3's setting - I grew up about ten minutes from the Franconia-Springfield Metro line, so all of downtown DC in particular feels like a wonderful in-joke. Neither storyline really captured me, but I'm not that kind of player. I prefer to just load up the game and have a wander around.

I go back to New Vegas more often than FO3, because I prefer its setting (and not being a 19 year old kid, c'mon.) But my reason was probably a bit out of the Fallout spirit, I guess? The Capitol Wasteland was so... wasteland-y. I remember having the impression of grey, grey everywhere, and concrete and asphalt and rocks and more grey.

Whereas New Vegas had default landscape, sure - lots of sand and scrub - but it was more entertaining to wander through, and there was (again, in my head) more variety in topography and even trees. I found it prettier. My favorite DLC was Honest Hearts, though, which gives you an idea of what I consider pretty, which may not really be the Wasteland experience. I spent a lot of time bumming around places where the scenery was essentially Elder Scrolls Pretty Places Plus Rifles.

What I'm trying to say is I am a bad Fallout player. Also, downtown DC is amazing but too fragmented.

# ? Apr 20, 2012 00:36

Tubgirl Cosplay: Jan 10, 2011; by Ion Helmet

Cream-of-Plenty posted:

It is already too late. Somewhere, J.E. Sawyer is sitting in a cave and has already disseminated my idea into DLC-sized bites.

In STALKER, the whole game is broken up into a bunch of smaller worldspaces, rather than a single, giant sandbox (a la Oblivion or Fallout 3 + NV). These areas are connected by a PDA map, similar to the FO1/FO2 style Pipboy map. Each game has implemented means of "unlocking" new parts of the map by progressing through the story-line.

While that would hurt Fallout's tradition of, "You can go wherever you want the minute the game starts," I'm sure there are ways to allow all areas to be available but undiscovered. That is, you can open your Pipboy map and pick a cardinal direction to leave your current area, but you don't know if you'll discover any locations...unless, of course, you've played the game already. Exactly like Fallout 1 and 2.

Who said anything about real time travel? Time would just progress ultra-fast, simulating a realistic distance between locations. Exactly like Fallout 1 and 2.

EDIT: Oh, I see who you were referring to. Nevermind.

STALKER started with the one big map concept and broke it up purely due to the need to ship a product sometime before the sun burned out, though, and showed the shortcomings of that model pretty handily. Nobody, devs or players, thought it was ideal when the maps were basically one or two points of interest surrounded by loving nothing (surrounded by impassable barriers), which is why each of the sequels had the maps get successively bigger and bigger and have more and more even distribution of fun stuff. CoP was pretty much striving towards a New Vegas style layout on its janky Ukranian shooter engine, and you spent virtually no time travelling between maps.

The randomly generated wasteland/encounters in FO1 and 2 did a decent job of simulating a big empty stretch of nowhere (especially in FO2 where the random maps were sort of interesting in themselves) but they're a mark of a bygone age, and won't be coming back.

Ockhams Crowbar posted:

I got into Fallout while I was waiting for Skyrim to come out; I had spent obscene amounts of time wandering around Oblivion, and needed something to tide me over. All I knew about Fallout 3 and New Vegas was that Bethesda was involved in some capacity, and the save/load menus looked pretty identical to Oblivion. That's what sold me, really.

I played FO3 first, but always found myself preferring New Vegas for the map and scenery. Not that I don't appreciate FO3's setting - I grew up about ten minutes from the Franconia-Springfield Metro line, so all of downtown DC in particular feels like a wonderful in-joke. Neither storyline really captured me, but I'm not that kind of player. I prefer to just load up the game and have a wander around.

I go back to New Vegas more often than FO3, because I prefer its setting (and not being a 19 year old kid, c'mon.) But my reason was probably a bit out of the Fallout spirit, I guess? The Capitol Wasteland was so... wasteland-y. I remember having the impression of grey, grey everywhere, and concrete and asphalt and rocks and more grey.

Whereas New Vegas had default landscape, sure - lots of sand and scrub - but it was more entertaining to wander through, and there was (again, in my head) more variety in topography and even trees. I found it prettier. My favorite DLC was Honest Hearts, though, which gives you an idea of what I consider pretty, which may not really be the Wasteland experience. I spent a lot of time bumming around places where the scenery was essentially Elder Scrolls Pretty Places Plus Rifles.

What I'm trying to say is I am a bad Fallout player. Also, downtown DC is amazing but too fragmented.

Downtown DC was so dissapointing. I was really psyched when FO3 was coming out because in real life it's such a distinctive area, endless canyons of heavy brutal stone and concrete architecture, big security barriers and secret locations everywhere, massive class and cultural divides in communities all packed right atop one another while never ever mixing; unlike anything Fallout had done before but ripe for the same kind of treatment, and they give us... 3D versions of the LA sprites and some pretty :effort:

shots at a couple landmarks, possibly referenced from postcards. The other Fallouts really feel like the postapocalyptic West, it's all blown to hell but still have a distinct flavor informed by the actual region and its natives which makes them feel sorta grounded (except when they're doing Monty Python jokes). FO3 felt like it had been put together in a Korean sweatshop by people who'd seen screenshots of the first game and been told to 'do that, but in Washington'.

Tubgirl Cosplay fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Apr 20, 2012

# ? Apr 20, 2012 01:43

prometheusbound2: Jul 5, 2010

I think the Liberty Prime ending kind of highlights the difference between the two fanbases pretty well. To some it was an awesome cinematic conclusion; to others a linear and barely interactive pointless slog.

# ? Apr 20, 2012 01:44

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

The shittiest part about Liberty Prime is that "you have to escort a killer robot" could've produced some fun encounters, but all you have to do is hang back and let LP kill everybody. There could've been a side mission to go hit an Enclave artillery post so they couldn't shell the robot, or the Enclave could've trapped it in a "box" of force fields, necessitating that the player find and disable the generators, or they could've collapsed a building on it, causing it to shake off the building but forcing you to find an alternate route that rejoins the path of the robot later. And that's just off the top of my head. Instead you sit back, let the robot kill everybody, and then once you get to the memorial you could a couple of dudes who aren't any different from the dudes you've been killing lately, and then you decide for no goddamn reason to irradiate yourself (or a person you've met twice) to death instead of sending in the supermutant whose ONLY PLOT PURPOSE IN THE GAME was to keep you from being irradiated to death at an earlier time, with no loss to himself. Just awful.

# ? Apr 20, 2012 01:50

Merry Magpie: Jan 8, 2012; A superstitious cowardly lot.

Pope Guilty posted:

The shittiest part about Liberty Prime is that "you have to escort a killer robot" could've produced some fun encounters, but all you have to do is hang back and let LP kill everybody. There could've been a side mission to go hit an Enclave artillery post so they couldn't shell the robot, or the Enclave could've trapped it in a "box" of force fields, necessitating that the player find and disable the generators, or they could've collapsed a building on it, causing it to shake off the building but forcing you to find an alternate route that rejoins the path of the robot later. And that's just off the top of my head. Instead you sit back, let the robot kill everybody, and then once you get to the memorial you could a couple of dudes who aren't any different from the dudes you've been killing lately, and then you decide for no goddamn reason to irradiate yourself (or a person you've met twice) to death instead of sending in the supermutant whose ONLY PLOT PURPOSE IN THE GAME was to keep you from being irradiated to death at an earlier time, with no loss to himself. Just awful.

I am apparently the only person who wished they could pilot the robot.

# ? Apr 20, 2012 01:52

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Merry Magpie posted:

I am apparently the only person who wished they could pilot the robot.

A nigh-invincible killer encased in impenetrable steel and firing a powerful laser? By the end of a Fallout game, that's you already. :colbert:

# ? Apr 20, 2012 01:54

Preem Palver: Jul 5, 2007

prometheusbound2 posted:

I think the Liberty Prime ending kind of highlights the difference between the two fanbases pretty well. To some it was an awesome cinematic conclusion; to others a linear and barely interactive pointless slog.

Liberty Prime was cool, but it should have been off in the background wrecking poo poo while you actually had to unholster your gun and fight your way up to the end. And not have the dumbass ending of killing yourself in the purifier while surrounded by people who could do the same thing without being harmed.

# ? Apr 20, 2012 01:59

Fintilgin: Sep 29, 2004; Fintilgin sweeps!

Merry Magpie posted:

I am apparently the only person who wished they could pilot the robot.

Well, you and Todd Howard. Apparently that was their original idea for Liberty Prime, and it ended up getting reduced in scope and cut back to what we got at some point in development.

# ? Apr 20, 2012 02:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 17:56

Niggard of Oz: Jan 24, 2011; It's a NIGGER joke,
You Faggot's!

What's up with Karma in this game? I randomly get a huge bunch from killing ghouls or powder gangers, but it's so random I can't figure out what I'm doing to get it. I could kill 20 ghouls and not get any karma for 19 of them, but one of them will give it and put me from near evil to good.

# ? Apr 20, 2012 02:38

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Fallout: New Vegas: Ain't that a cuck in the bed?

«‹›1237 »