Video Games

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by JapanAlex01

Fallout: New Vegas (**** if anyone's gonna tell me this is a stand-alone game!)
I started playing that for an hour or two over the weekend. It absolutely is a stand alone game. Your issue appears to be that it is pretty much the same stand alone game as Fallout 3. The same was true of Fallout and Fallout 2 - they were pretty much the same game with a few tweaks (i.e. bigger world, more guns, a couple of new features). My first impressions of New Vegas are that it appears to be sort of a revamped completion of Van Buren, which was supposed to be Fallout 3 before Black Isle / Interplay bought the farm. This bodes well. Perhaps we can just forget Fallout 3 ever happened and just call New Vegas Fallout 3. Would definitely be a quick fix for all the broken canon that monstrosity inflicted.

 

[Neo_Version 7]

^^ My roommate's cousin's uncle's neighbour's father works for Blizzard and he said it is happening.

 

[JapanAlex01]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

I started playing that for an hour or two over the weekend. It absolutely is a stand alone game. Your issue appears to be that it is pretty much the same stand alone game as Fallout 3. The same was true of Fallout and Fallout 2 - they were pretty much the same game with a few tweaks (i.e. bigger world, more guns, a couple of new features). My first impressions of New Vegas are that it appears to be sort of a revamped completion of Van Buren, which was supposed to be Fallout 3 before Black Isle / Interplay bought the farm. This bodes well. Perhaps we can just forget Fallout 3 ever happened and just call New Vegas Fallout 3. Would definitely be a quick fix for all the broken canon that monstrosity inflicted.
Wow, to say that New Vegas is better than 3 is just

! New Vegas is beer-drinking fun, Fallout 3 is wide-eyed, lean-in game-play! All it is is, new quests and a yellow tint rather than a green..?!

 

[breakz]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

I started playing that for an hour or two over the weekend. It absolutely is a stand alone game.

So if I enjoyed Fallout 3, would I enjoy New Vegas? Looking for a new game, been playing too much Reach recently.

Also, are the bugs worked out yet? I heard the console versions were incredibly buggy.

 

[JapanAlex01]

Originally Posted by breakz

So if I enjoyed Fallout 3, would I enjoy New Vegas? Looking for a new game, been playing too much Reach recently.

Also, are the bugs worked out yet? I heard the console versions were incredibly buggy.

I heard that about Red Dead, but never saw anything?! New Vegas is definitely worth the purchase/rent, but it's just more levels (an add-on, damn it!), so you won't be experiencing much new!

 

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by JapanAlex01

Wow, to say that New Vegas is better than 3 is just

! New Vegas is beer-drinking fun, Fallout 3 is wide-eyed, lean-in game-play! All it is is, new quests and a yellow tint rather than a green..?!
I assume this is coming from someone who basically wants a no-thinking, no-writing, superficial plot with black-and-white morality FPS game, one that has no bearing on the previous games or anything that made them classics. Fallout 3 was not an RPG, its RPG elements were completely ancillary to shooting non-thinking super mutants in the head. None of the plot made any sense in the context of the series. Did you play F1 and F2 back when they came out? Those games had a soul, F3 has none. It was entirely bland. Shooting at things over and over and over is not interesting to me, so I couldn't even finish it.

It was incredibly disappointing that with all that money and the benefit of more than a decade's technological advancement, Beth couldn't come up with a game that was even close to as enjoyable as the first two.

So if I enjoyed Fallout 3, would I enjoy New Vegas? Looking for a new game, been playing too much Reach recently.

To the above: I have only played it for a couple of hours. I can't tell yet if it's better than F3 or what. If you enjoyed F3, my viewpoint may not matter to you. It is the same game mechanics though. So far the writing and concept seem better and a lot of the story elements from the abandoned game that was supposed to be fallout 3 have apparently been re-cycled here (which makes sense because many of the dev's are the same guys). You can basically rest assured that the writing will be better, though that's not saying much, because I could write better than anyone at Bethesda even if you removed half of my brain.

Also, are the bugs worked out yet? I heard the console versions were incredibly buggy.

Apparently not. I installed it and the game crashed after opening vid. I installed a dx fix, which caused the launcher to crash. I got it figured out and now it works and I haven't had any problems since then, but I will be quicksaving frequently because I don't trust it. These are the hazards of trying to make a game with someone else's tech.

 

[JapanAlex01]

^ Ok, a fan boy who obviously doesn't know much about games. A good game is a good game regardless of whether it sticks to the same trend as the originals. Yes, I have played the first two, and loved them, but just because this one is different (it's a 3D game, aduh?!) doesn't mean it is bad! You obviously prefer games that are more paper-based. Which is fine, I love paper-based games, but to say Fallout 3 sucks is just stupid! I never really got into the Grand Theft Auto series (I liked San Andreas, but never completed it). The reasons why are because I didn't like the feel of the missions and found driving round and round tiring after a while. I wouldn't say it isn't a great game, I can see why it's good, but I just never got into it. I could give some negatives about Fallout 3—you can do the main plot and it'll be game over, it takes a lot (most likely a walk-through!) to go off and complete all the other quests! In that sense, I wish they had done a better job! Some of the writing is a little cheesy, and some of the mechanics are a little screwy too! It's still a great game though, and, thankfully, a lot of people know this!

 

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by JapanAlex01

^ Ok, a fan boy who obviously doesn't know much about games.
True, I loved the first two games when I was a kid and assumedly this makes me a fan boy. And I barely play video games.

My problem with F3 isn't that it's a 3d game. I am optimistic about NV, and it's a 3d game. My problem is that it's bland. It's uninteresting. It's a stupid FPS point and click designed to appeal to people who don't want to think. And it's not just poorly written and plotted - it's abysmally written and plotted. We've had video games for a good two-plus-decades now in more or less their present form, it's about time to start treating this like any other medium and allow for something besides flashy visuals, fast-paced clicking and "cool ****" that makes no sense. All of that is even fine from time to time for mindless enjoyment's sake, but to see a series that was one of the better executed VG's of all time re-launched ten years later and stripped of everything that made it good, transformed into "just another shooter"... sucked.

What I want out of fallout is an irreverently witty, satirical atmosphere that pits the altogether-too-wholesome culture of the 50's stereotype against the stark, lord-of-the-flies-philosophy concept of what the world is like once all society has gone to hell in a handbasket. It's bleak and at the same time somehow hilarious. The enjoyment of those games was not from shooting things, it was from finding things, exploring things, consequences, from environments and societies and interactions with characters who had some actual depth, even though many were tropes designed to hammer home some theme (i.e. Lynette in Vault City). Most of what happened in those first two games did not happen as the result of weaponry (unless you made it so, and in doing so you'd miss 80% of the game). F1 and F2 weren't artistic masterpieces in the form of video games, they were often pretty hamhanded, but they were a lot better than most games. Why, in ten years and with the industry much more developed, has there been no progress?

Instead of a nostalgic trip back to that interesting and nuanced (from a gaming perspective) world, we got a half-decent shooter with a thin, nonsensical backstory that seemed to have been developed as an afterthought. Whoever wrote the dialogue must actually be marsupialed, or ESL, one of the two; a lot of it actually reads like a bad translation. People complain about writing in JRPGs, but those are INTENDED to be spectacularly cheesy and camp, it's genre. This isn't. And this is worse. None of it has any charm and as a result the interactions are wholly uninteresting. The two main factions in F3 are uprooted from the previous game and planted in a new setting where they have no place. It's immediately forced. The previous "grey" motivations of those factions are gone, one is now a bunch of white knights and the other unambiguously evil. Similarly, super mutants are planted so that we have something to shoot at, and robbed of all depth. All of this is weakly and nonsensically explained away in a futile effort to patch up the plot holes it creates. I mean you could write forever about the violence that game did to the previous two but I haven't got the patience. All of this could perhaps have been forgiven had the story made any sense, but it didn't. That's also something that could be written about ad nauseum, and has, like this dude did. http://www.treyconnell.com/fallout-3-strange-plot/

I just can't enjoy a game when I'm constantly going "this is sooooooo stuuuuuuupid."

 

[JapanAlex01]

What I want out of fallout is an irreverently witty, satirical atmosphere that pits the altogether-too-wholesome culture of the 50's stereotype against the stark, lord-of-the-flies-philosophy concept of what the world is like once all society has gone to hell in a hand-basket. It's bleak and at the same time somehow hilarious.

That was all there..?! Maybe, you just didn't 'get' it then? I could understand/accept any individual complaints, but your arguement is silly imo. There were tonnes of LOL moments, and it's truly the last game I totally O'D on! Yeah, I liked Portal 2, like I said, and I completed it! But it's no where near as great all FO3! I'll agree that I would like to see some games bring the level up to that of art or a movie! That's why I'm interested in L.A. Noire—not because I'm sure it will stand-up as it's own piece of art, but because the graphics engine will allow greater facial expressions which may lead to greater levels of art in video games! Some games, like Contra, are just button mashers. There is still a reason why they are good games though! FO3 is a good game and I don't think you have really thought through what makes it bad..?! (Not trying to be a dick!)

 

[breakz]

I'm not gonna lie AR_Six, I love looking up and seeing a wall of text. Expecting some well-reasoned stuff in there. EDIT: Agreed 100%. After a while FO3 became "shoot shoot shoot" etc. AR, could I play FO1/FO2 in dialogue-only mode? I've heard this mentioned a few times, and I bet this would be a great way to catch all the writing. Also, did you play Interplay's FO3? Japan:

Originally Posted by JapanAlex01

I'll agree that I would like to see some games bring the level up to that of art or a movie! That's why I'm interested in L.A. Noire—not because I'm sure it will stand-up as it's own piece of art, but because the graphics engine will allow greater facial expressions which may lead to greater levels of art in video games!
Greater facial expressions have nothing to do with the artistry of a game.

 

[AR_Six]

I have thought it through. Obviously. Given that I just posted an essay. The atmosphere isn't there and that starts with a) story and b) how story is delivered (i.e. writing, characters etc). It was done really badly. There weren't "LOL" moments, really, but that's not even the point; the humour in the first two games isn't great because it makes you burst out laughing. It had a point, it helped to develop the game world. In NV, for example, I started the game and walked out of a house into a windswept and bleak desertscape - only to be greeted by a dilapidated and slightly deranged robot with a cowboy icon on the screen who talks like a really cheesy 50's cowboy TV show. That kind of thing is very Fallout; it's lighthearted and offbeat, but because of the context, it's almost eerie. The game world in F3, meanwhile, is essentially just a place to put things to shoot at. Potentially good elements like that war between the two mock-superheroes were ruined by predictable, superficial and just all-around terrible writing. The point you're missing is that of course I "got" it, because there wasn't very much there to "get".

 

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by breakz

AR, could I play FO1/FO2 in dialogue-only mode? I've heard this mentioned a few times, and I bet this would be a great way to catch all the writing.
You mean go through the whole game without shooting? I don't know if it's possible but it'd be pretty close. You can kick the end boss of F2's ass a hell of a lot faster with a high speech / science skill than with a gun, for example, and you could rely heavily on NPC's for combat where necessary. In F1 you can beat one of the end bosses, at least, without even interacting with him, though you lose the enjoyment of that "final showdown".

Also, did you play Interplay's FO3?

Interplay's fallout 3 (Van Buren) was never finished. The engine was basically done and the story / writing about 75% finished, but the locations were only partway. It would have taken some doing to complete. As I say, it looks to me, from what I know about what Van Buren would have been and what I know so far about the New Vegas world, is that Obsidian has taken some of those elements they were going to use in Van Buren and recycled them here, with some tweaking. That's probably a good thing.

 

[JapanAlex01]

It's just funny though, because all the things you say are lacking in the 3rd game are all present?!

breakz: of course facial expressions are only one part of a game, but good facial expressions, when tied to a murder mystery, will allow bluffing, double-bluffing, etc. This can be a great aid to art..?! It's like people who dismiss graphics, graphics/physics can swing a game from bad to good in an instant—many people just don't realise how important they are! They set the atmosphere, and everything down to a T is affected by the graphics. Phew, semi-rant over!

 

[AR_Six]

Go ahead and try to come up with instances of F3 being Fallout-like. There actually are a couple, I mentioned one above - but they're few and far between, they're overwhelmed by all the other issues and the "FPS first" focus of the game, and they're basically all poorly executed attempts because no one could be arsed to write them properly. Because of that, even if it WERE possible to focus heavily on speech to complete the game, it wouldn't be enjoyable.

See the problem you're having, and this is reflected in your other discussion, is that you're caught up in the "cool ****". The impact of better-realized and more human facial expressions on a murder mystery is completely meaningless if the murder mystery itself isn't any good. These things are complimentary aspects that add a little something extra. The core of the game is what matters. In an RPG, that comes from writing, mostly, and gameplay. The fact that Mass Effect was pretty good despite pretty weak gameplay and RPG elements is a good example of this.

 

[JapanAlex01]

*rubbing eyes I hate it when people on the internets miss-read things (I understand miss-speaking!)! Of course, if the plot of L.A. Noire is ****, then it is ****! What I am saying though is that complex facial expressions could give a greater depth to game-play. I don't see how anyone could dispute that? Fallout 3, while the main story arch was marsupialed and badly paced, had loads of 'Fallout' moments! Practically every single side-plot was hilarious?! There were obscure references in the Nuka-Cola factory, for example. The side-plot with the children was nice too. I don't like games for the 'cool ****' (which is a pretty weak rebuttal btw), I like games for story, characters, graphics, game-play, etc—everything that goes into a game! I can understand your point that there may be too much shooting in Fallout 3. I can dig that, not my particular opinion (it never tired me, Final Fantasy VII is another great example of a game where fighting rarely gets tiring), but, at least, I understand it! To say Fallout 3 is poorly written/unfunny is just totally doltish and wrong!

Good things about FO3: Atmosphere, graphics, dialogue, game-play, side-plots, character development, humour. Bad things about FO3: Main story arch, ending (although, how else could it end?), sometimes tediousness of the wasteland, physics a little glitchy sometimes. I wouldn't say it was the greatest game of all time, but it will go down as one of the greatest! My grade for it, at the time, was an A (a very good A, no less! If you want a referencing point, kinda like Stankonia by Outkast).