Fallout: New Vegas

[Assaultman67]

ok, I don't know the Bethesda engine at all ...

But I have a hard time conceptualizing how ass backward an engine would have to be that an animation glitch such as a dog "walking backwards" wouldn't be the easiest fix in the world ...

It just sounds like someone put a minus sign somewhere it shouldn't be ...

[Renegade_Turner]

He is just saying, in no super mathematical, logistically proven terms.

You like to pick apart other people posts on this forum.
You just trashed him for picking at the games bugs.
You may say they are different things, but isn't that just being picky?

Now does that show irony? Some say yes.
Do you care? I don't think you ever care, so no.

No, that doesn't show irony, because the matter at hand was being cynical and stuck up towards games.

And why are you going on about me caring about what you say? Is it the norm to expect people to care about the words of some stranger a thousand miles away? I'll answer that. No.

And actually, no, if you would have noticed in recent times I haven't actually done it to anyone. If you'll also notice, all I did was criticise his reasoning for not purchasing the game. If he thought Fallout 3 and Oblivion were good games then it's nonsensical to disregard Fallout New Vegas due to buggy animations or scripting. That's what games like these do.

Anyway, what are you, his father? The kid's old enough to speak for himself, give him some credit, he's well able to argue back, he's done it enough times.

[Grayswandir]

So I've into played Fallout: New Vegas a couple hours.
Things I've Noticed:
-New Perks and Traits, there don't seem to be any Perks that don't have some side-effect so far
-You seem to start out weaker than the Fallout 3 hero, and they throw more traps and enemies at you from the start, so you have to play more carefully
-They've made crafting more useful than it was, and you can make some pretty cool stuff now.
-You no longer have to use VATS to hit anything at a distance of farther than 10 feet.
-More melee/unarmed weapons plus cool melee/unarmed only special moves
-Towns and areas are now affected seperately by your good/bad deeds that you do there
-The ragdolling and physics are still just as silly, and you still glide over the landscape
-You can find some pretty cool weapons near the beginning
-I've run into a large number of Speech required (but optional) conversations
-More auto-save options than in Fallout 3
-Magazines don't seem to add permanent stat boosts anymore.

Honestly, as I said above, I'm only a few hours in, so I've pretty much completed the tutorial (free experience and gear, so why not), and done all the quests that I could in the first town and I've moved onto the next one in the chain of the main storyline (I've also made one faction hate me entirely while another likes me). So far, I'm enjoying it, I'll leave how much its worth up to you.

I'm playing a "good character" that will pretty much take anything that isn't bolted down if I think I need it and you aren't looking. I got a nice 9mm SMG and some kick ass metal knuckles early.

[Freshbite]

Ooh, metal knuckles. That sounds awesome.

[Radu]

Fallout: New Vegas <-- Crapistique Crap isn't the same as F1 , F2 and FTactics

[Blorx]

If he thought Fallout 3 and Oblivion were good games then it's nonsensical to disregard Fallout New Vegas due to buggy animations or scripting.

I hated Fallout 3 and got bored with Oblivion after completing the Thieve's Guild quest line. The only thing I had said was that I never ran into any bugs with either. Frankly, though, I find Bethesda's (more recent, at least) RPGs long, drawn out, anticlimactic, and frankly, you may have "options" (quote unquote), but in reality, it's more like choosing your campaign in a shallow, graphical action game menu. People call the game a sandbox. Is it? Are either of them? You can choose which quest line you want to do (out of...5? 6?) and/or you can just kill everyone. Doesn't sound like a sandbox to me. Sounds like a shallow attempt at a graphical menu, like mentioned above. All they do is tell you where to go and who to kill under what circumstances. The Thieve's Guild was the only exception, unless, of course, you were terrible at being a sneak and then it would devolve into you killing everyone, yet again.

Last I recall, (without mods), you can't even craft. It's a good distraction from the meat of the game and people know that. Hell, doesn't even Torchlight have a basic crafting system in place? Can you fish? Can you do anything other than kill stuff and buy stuff and go on some (rather dull, mostly) quest lines? No? Oh, okay. Not everyone wants options on "where to go and who to kill under what circumstances", some people want, you know, real choices. This isn't a dungeon runner, there's no excuse not to have something other than killing to do in the basic game.

Sounds like bad game design to me. If you need player mods for the game to be fun, then you're not doing very good.

And then on top of that all, you're handing it to Obsidian. Obsidian. Cool, they made Kotor2 and NWN2. No one I've ever talked to would choose either of those over their predecessor, which speaks volumes about their quality, considering they came so much later with such graphical improvements. Then there's also Alpha Protocol. I wouldn't have touched it with a 10-ft barge pole after reading reviews on it. Just about every critic hit every bug imaginable.

I've got reasoning.

[Renegade_Turner]

[Sean Connery voice]CAUGHT YOU![/Sean Connery voice]

So you didn't even play Alpha Protocol either? Tsk tsk. Listening to reviewers is all well and good, but you can only cite them as "I heard this from a reviewer", you can't claim them as your own views. You've never played the game!

KOTOR 2 was better than KOTOR. Better combat, better character relationships, more quests, more choices, more stats affecting your dialogue. I thought on the whole it was a better game.

As for Neverwinter Nights 2 I can't say because I never played Neverwinter Nights...y'know, that whole not-running-your-mouth-about-something-you-haven't-tried-yourself? =D

Fallout 3 and Oblivion were both very good games which were critically praised (which you apparently see as the be all and end all since you've completely judged Alpha Protocol based on the critics' reviews), so I think you'll have to concede the point. =O

[Blorx]

So you didn't even play Alpha Protocol either? Tsk tsk. Listening to reviewers is all well and good, but you can only cite them as "I heard this from a reviewer", you can't claim them as your own views. You've never played the game!

Not all reviews are written by critics. Included in there are word of mouth reviews and online player reviews. No one liked the game. In response, I saved by $60.

KOTOR 2 was better than KOTOR. Better combat, better character relationships, more quests, more choices, more stats affecting your dialogue. I thought on the whole it was a better game.

I didn't like it quite as much. Not sure why, just lacked a certain charm, perhaps. *shrug*

As for Neverwinter Nights 2 I can't say because I never played Neverwinter Nights...y'know, that whole not-running-your-mouth-about-something-you-haven't-tried-yourself? =D

I've played it, and along with everyone else, went running back to NWN. I'm pretty sure that on release, it was loaded with bugs too. It slowly got better bugwise, but the number of players in NWN is exponentially upon another exponent larger than in NWN2, even now.

Fallout 3 and Oblivion were both very good games which were critically praised (which you apparently see as the be all and end all since you've completely judged Alpha Protocol based on the critics' reviews), so I think you'll have to concede the point. =O

I told you I played through both of them. I won't touch anything in the Fallout series until Interplay releases Fallout Online. The charm behind Fallout was totally ruined in Bethesda's interpretation. It brought the humor down to the "teenage" level, if you will, used all the wrong colors (what the hell was up with all the greenish tones?), etc, etc.

Oblivion, I played through the Thieve's Guild quest and got bored.

Now, see. This is why I wasn't going to post. This "I'm right, you're wrong" bullshit. Instead of accepting the fact that I hate companies that will pay their CEOs shitloads when they can't even hire a viable QA team, and I hate companies that take over other peoples' franchises and then screw them up (example, Oddworld. If Oddworld Inhabitants sold Oddworld, I'd never play another of them. The whole "Just Add Water ordeal" is fine, however, because all they're doing is porting some of their classic games to PS3). I don't care about critics praising or downing a game. If the game is so loaded with bugs that every critic that reviews it is harping on it every other sentence, then that's saying something.

EDIT: On a side-note, you gotta love the people that think they know all about Fallout because they played Fallout 3.

One of the reasons I hated the Fallout 3 story is because your character wasn't allowed out of the Vault, but broke out anyways, to find his father. In the first Fallout game, they intentionally sent you out because they needed help. People were allowed out. That, and, anyone who understands the setting should know that realistically, he never should have been able to find his father. His father should have been dead.

[Renegade_Turner]

Hahaha, his father should have been dead? SHOULD? You have some silly views. On the one hand you try to back your opinion up with reviews, and on the other hand you reject the reviews that don't agree with you.

Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 are extremely buggy too. When Mass Effect first came out EVERY critic complained about the bugginess. That clearly makes it an awful game. El oh el.

[Blorx]

Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 are extremely buggy too. When Mass Effect first came out EVERY critic complained about the bugginess. That clearly makes it an awful game. El oh el.

I never touched Mass Effect 2 either, but that was more because I didn't like the first one. It was dull, didn't do what it claimed to, and was severely overrated.

Also, you completely ignored half of that post. Backing myself up with reviews? I think not. I don't care about the rating. It's the content in the review that matters. People rated Cy Girls horribly because they thought it was dull (environments and all) and didn't like running back and forth, but completely ignored the fact that jumping on a guard and running him through with two swords at once is insanely fun. It was pretty dull for the most part, but it was also pretty challenging and had a decent amount of interesting ways to kill people. It also wasn't absolutely loaded with obvious bugs.


EDIT:

Hahaha, his father should have been dead? SHOULD? You have some silly views.

I fail to see how this is silly. It's just not viable to believe that his father, the lone unarmed scientist, survived so long in the places he did when pretty much no one else, save the occasional scavenger, does.

[Healey]

I'm about 6 hours in now, and yes, I have run into multiple crashes and the "moonwalking dog" bug, but I don't think they take away from the game at all.

If you were disappointed in FO3, but liked the first two, I recommend this one.

It's a lot more realistic.

-You seem to start out weaker than the Fallout 3 hero, and they throw more traps and enemies at you from the start, so you have to play more carefully
-You no longer have to use VATS to hit anything at a distance of farther than 10 feet.
-More melee/unarmed weapons plus cool melee/unarmed only special moves
-Towns and areas are now affected seperately by your good/bad deeds that you do there
-I've run into a large number of Speech required (but optional) conversations

I'm playing a mercenary like character with balanced stats. I have found myself fooled by countless frag mines that I would have never expected(like one under a orange cone, cautious me), and jumped by a few gangs of raiders that nearly killed me. The Hardcore mode is nice, it adds another depth of difficulty, but isn't something you are constantly worrying about. And unlike 3, the Mojave Desert is so much more alive and functioning than the Capital Wasteland. Running into my first Ghoul was like a slap in the face to me, I had almost forgot there was ever a nuclear war. The characters are much more believable, and it's no longer "good" or "evil". Both the New California Republic and Casear's Legion have gray aspects of their moralities, and the more time you spend with each, the more you will doubt siding with them.

So I recommend it. It's fun. Just don't sit there for 10 hours straight, or your eyes will hurt.

EDIT: I just re-read this, and boy, do I have some grammar to brush up on.

[Renegade_Turner]

I fail to see how this is silly. It's just not viable to believe that his father, the lone unarmed scientist, survived so long in the places he did when pretty much no one else, save the occasional scavenger, does.

You start off the other Fallout games with nothing but sticks and shit.

Also, what does him being a scientist have to do with anything, and how do you know he was unarmed? Plenty of people had access to guns, why wouldn't he?

What are the odds of you surviving in the first two games if your dad surviving in Fallout 3 is supposedly implausible?

And anyway, Megaton was about 60 seconds away from the Vault on foot...it wouldn't have been so difficult to survive until there.

Holes ALL OVER the place in your argument.

[Ragdollmaster]

>Oblivion, I played through the Thieve's Guild quest and got bored.

WHAAA?

[/mcninja]

Honestly? Dark Brotherhood was fucking awesome, it was like playing through a murder mystery at times and involved kicking serious butt at others. Mage's Guild was also cool for various unrelated reasons. Knights Of The Nine is arguably one of the funnest quest lines in the game (except for the beginning where you have to find like 9 shrines with the use of some old ass map, BUT OTHER THAN THAT). The main quest is epic as hell. The very ending is a little anti-climatic, sure, but you get to watch a guy transform into a huge ass dragon (which I found slightly reminiscent of this one scene in SaGa Frontier 2, which made me go all fuzzy inside) and take on one of the baddest badasses in the game. The armor you get afterwards, though, is terrible. Divine Crusader armor is way better and of course, Custom Enchanted Daedric armor is much better than either of them. There were also TONS of side quests that you could find by doing nothing other than walking around. Honestly, I once walked into Hackdirt with no previous knowledge of its existence and freaked out when I saw dead bodies strewn over the city. It's a literal ghost town with an underground cave full of crazed "brethren" that attack you on sight. It's small stuff like that that makes Oblivion awesome. Just go walk around and you'll find monsters, special quests, rune stones, hidden dungeons, unique items, and so on.

Then again I suppose it depends on your personal taste. I just know that I spent over 100 hours playing Oblivion on my main account and about 10 hours each in four or five experimental accounts I made to test out other race-class combinations.

[Count Roland]

if I recall correctly whenever your dad fought with you he only had like a lead pipe.

[Zhukov]

That, and, anyone who understands the setting should know that realistically, he never should have been able to find his father. His father should have been dead.

\
If the protagonist can survive, why can't his/her dad?

Maybe dear old dad maxed out his sneak skill, effectively making him invisible whenever he sits down.
Maybe he just carried a thousand stimpacks with him. With enough stimpacks you can survive anything. And they're weightless.
Maybe he spent a couple of days shooting molerats outside Megaton until he suddenly morphed into an unstoppable fighter.
Maybe he just hired a couple of people to escort him.
Maybe he travelled with some traders.

In short, surviving in the world of Fallout isn't as hard as the writers would like you to think. I never understood why all the NPCs seemed to be having such a hard time of it.