Is Fallout: New Vegas a true sequel, or just more of the same? Are the accusations of 'Fallout 3.5' overly harsh, or dead on the money?
it's a bit of both through really. same game engine (when you're in the desert it's like playing 3), but pushed to do other things (when you get to vegas a completely different game!)
It feels the same, looks the same, however it doesn't have the first time "Whoa!" factor that Fallout 3 did. They should have built a new engine to try and give us that feeling again.
I think its a testiment to Fallout 3's success that so many have gone and bought this game based on how similar it looks. Generally the game has received very positive review scores , even after the complaints of it being too similar, and too buggy. I think that says alot about the game. @Raztad below:, Exaclty... thats the reason it wasnt called Fallout 4. I believe fallout 4 , if there is one, will be set after a different period of time has elapsed and in a different setting altogether. The mojave and capital wastelands both have alot of similarities, but its justified, considering their close proximity to one and other. Therefore I think it was a good idea not to have a new engine for this installment, but I welcome it for the next game.
I don't know about you, but Oblivion's engine was hyped up for sooo long (I remember seeing it in EGM(!) and not believing my eyes) I don't know if I could bear that wait again.
There is a reason Fallout:NV was not named Fallout 4.
Numbering sequels is a bad habit anyway. Who wants to play a game called Silent Hill "EIGHT". The larger the number the less appetizing it sounds.
Sequels in long standing franchises always excite fans. FFXIII for instance. I think Bethesda is planing to use ID TECH-5 engine to power Fallout 4 up. It would look much better and run better. New Vegas purpose is to milk Fallout 3 success w/o any additional investment in tech. Ubisoft is doing EXACTLY the same with AC:Brotherhood. You may call AC:B and F:NV spinoffs.
Fallout 4 on ID tech 5 would be gaming heaven !!
with all due respect... brotherhood isnt quite the same as new vegas there are tons of changes and we were left at a cliff hanger with ezio's story... but the game mechanics have definitley seen some work with destructible enviroments, better and much improved upon combat, and even a full on multiplayer mode that won many best of e3 awards its unfair to compare the 2
Assassins creed is being milked now though ah==haha, I may get brotherhood....may
It *is* 3.5 -same engine, same timeframe. It's just a different story on the other side of the US. F4 will be interesting.
I'm betting Fallout 4 is set in New York.
London with a 60's British pop soundtrack and lots of color on the rage engine i would compare it to gta and liberty city stories just on a much larger scale loving it so far
There will never EVER be a Fallout game outside of America, you obviously have never read the Fallout Bible.
If you read the Fallout bible, which was created by Chris and the original developers. You would also know that it said every major nuclear state at the time of 2077 launched its nukes and participated in the Great War. It mentions USA, USSR, China, and Europe were the main participates... meaning all of them launched nukes and also got hit by nukes. By that statement alone in the Fallout Bible, means the only possible places were nukes didnt really hit or wont be affected as much are South America, Africa, and Australia unless they get runoff Fallout from where ever. Just because they dont say specifically "Europe was hit hard by nuclear attacks" doesn't mean it didn't happen. The reason why Chris doesn't say stuff like that specifically is because of what he said in another interview for the Fallout bible.. saying he wants the future of the Fallout series to be open to new ideas. Then there is this tidbit: "Allistair Tenpenny came to the Capital Wasteland from Great Britain to seek his fortune, so that alone tells you that the U.K. was also hit in the war. And if he came to U.S. to succeed, that says a lot about how screwed up Europe must be. So we just allude, a little bit, to the state of the rest of the world. We like to leave a lot to the players' imaginations, and somebody like Tenpenny serves as a catalyst for those thoughts." - Emil Pagliarulo Emil Pagliarulo is the lead designer of Fallout 3 at Bethesda Game Studios. http://fallout.wikia.com/wi... so saying, "There will never EVER be a Fallout game outside of America, you obviously have never read the Fallout Bible.", is doubly wrong.
THE WORLD got Nuked after the great war of '77. any key area (Russia, China, Europe, USA) is fallout location would be awesome if next fallout you can travel between countries?!
It is more of the same engine and style but thats about it. There is a pretty big difference between the two though. You can tell that they were made by two different devs.
Fallout 3 lacked depth funneling the player into linear set pieces whereas FNV is much more dynamic and encourages no one style in fact it of forces you to specialise and miss out on certain game scenarios. The worst thing that can be said about F3 is that whatever choices you make any 2 playthroughs are 99% the same which is less the case with FNV. FNV also has routes and objectives that are accessible to end game players on most missions so that the missions are slightly different based on which you choose to complete first.
look at the facts... outdated engine (same as last FO which I bought) and buggy, buggy buggy and a bit of rehash = canceled my pre-order.... when and if the game is really fixed and hits the bargin bin, I may rebuy it
Whatever you may call it im loving it
I think once you spend 40 hours in this game and realize you haven't done JACK SHIT you will realize how much of an improvement this is on FO3. FO3 sidequests felt like you did them and then that was that, there was no connection to the story for the most part. In New Vegas, every location seems intertwined with another to an extraordinary extent, in which, no area is inconsequential, it always ties into the back story, main story, faction dynamics, or lore...in some way or another.
I love the fact you can kill someone or complete a different quest only to find out you failed a quest later on. that leaves so many different ways to play it out. I'm not even sure you can actually finish the game with all side quests completed in one playthrough. Awesome IMO.
You can't possibly do all quests in one playthhrough. You are going to piss of one faction or another to where you wont get every quest. I have completed about 3/4 of the side missions so far but there are some that I have no shot at.
Your point about FO3 is why I got bored with it. Might get FO:NV after what you say about everything intertwined.
It is of course, very similar. But, what did everyone expect, exactly? Essentially, they took what Bethesda did with the franchise and they added more Fallout. Bethesda's Fallout 3, was more Fallout-lite (light for those who wish things to be spells correctly) and New Vegas is really Fallout 3. Some people won't understand what I mean, because they have never played the first 2 in the series. Others will simply disagree, to disagree. In the grand scheme of things, if you enjoyed Fallout 3, you will enjoy Fallout: New Vegas. If you didn't enjoy Fallout 3, than why do you even care in the first place? I'm not knocking what Bethesda created. I like their games, I just see the situation for what it is. Obsidian was, no doubt, eager to have some control over another Fallout and were no doubt happy to be a part of the next generation of its creation. I would be too if I worked on a project and it got blown to hell and I always still wanted to tell a story, but coudn't for a decade, but then got the chance to do it again.
Some people won't understand what I mean, because they have never played the first 2 in the series. Others will simply disagree, to disagree. EXACTLY. if you prefer FO3, you aren't/weren't a real Fallout fan fans of the originals will prefer New Vegas. it just feels more like fallout. + theres more to do, more humor, more weapons, more stuff happens, epic-er story, bigger scale of things, etc etc etc. its just everything FO3 was but better , only downsides: not as fresh as FO3, and unfortunately (not BI's fault) uses a sh!tty old engine, thats bethesda's fault for not sharing id5's engine. if anything, blackisles did an amazing job with this crappy old engine (imo)
I agree with you except that I would say F3 has got one thing over FNV and that is the map design. In F3 there were way too many invisble walls and mountains but they were at least subtly placed, not the case in NV. The number of times I have tried to make a short cut over hill and come up against an invisible wall that forces me to walk around it rather than allow me through it is pretty shoddy. In F3 I always felt that if I could see something then I could walk straight to it but that is rarely the case in FNV.
i played it last night i give bethesda 0 for creativity one huge DLC
a) it wasn't bethesda who developed it, it was Black Isles Studios (original Fallout makes, thus better story, more true to FO cannon and far more "fallout" vibe to it) b) if you give it 0 for creativity, you haven't played it enough c) if this is a DLC, then its DLC bigger than FO3 because this game is as far as im concerned at least 3x bigger than fallout 3 in terms of quests, items, options and things to do P.S agree'd with you (by mistake)
Either way, I want Obsidian to handle the Fallouts from now on. New Vegas feels a helluva lot more like a Fallout game than Fallout 3 did. Bethesda can do Elder Scrolls, Obsidian handles Fallout. Simple.
im having a great time in NV way more so then FO3 and it feels like a fallout to me. Old time Comp gamer. Anyways i totally agree NV is a great game and wasn't expecting to say this but in my top 3 this year. Great game again im so addicted.
I agree Obsidian should handle the Fallout series. New Vegas is a much better game than FO3 on every level except perfomance(bugs and freezes). If the game wasn't on such a shitty engine, it would be my GOTY or a very close second.
I'd like to remind everyone that the difference between Fallout 1 & 2 were relatively minor improvements to the gameplay, but otherwise the same graphics and look and style. Fallout 2 was also so buggy, many people couldn't finish their game (myself included.) Now considering Fallout 2 didn't have a quarter of the improvements and changes New Vegas has over FO3, I think you need to ask yourself: "Is Fallout 2 a sequel? Or is it an expansion pack for Fallout 1." I hope you don't have to think about it too long. This whole "debate" is just ridiculous. If you don't like the game, fine. Don't waste people's time by trolling about "fallout 3.5."
So spot on I don't have anything better to add. I just wanted to say I agree.
Its using the same engine and the core gameplay with VATS is the same. Obsidian though made this more connected to the original Fallout then what Fallout 3 was like. If you played the old Fallout you will notice lots of stuff pulled from those games and put into NV. The quests are similar, FO3 was more action heavy during its quests. NV deals a lot more with characters and lots of different outcomes that you can do during them, far less quests have you shooing your way out.
I'd say its 3.5 The .5 being the vastly superiour writing. The quests are more interesting.
I don't understand people at all. A linear 8 hour sequel to a linear 8 hour game with some new gimmicks and slightly better graphics is fine. However, crafting an entire new world to explore and filling it with quests and choices is a .5.
People... people never change. Again, a great comment and spot on. This is the generation of Multi-player maddness, so it will be hard for the majority of youngish gamers to understand. With all its bugs, I would take this game over so, so many others, any day of the week.
expansion, or a true follow-up. after having played it for a few hours, i can say that it's it's own product. i enjoy what Obsidian did to some of the game play systems that make it feel very different and improved from Fallout 3. it feels more like an RPG than Fallout 3 did. i enjoy how leveling up is spaced out, and the perks that are a lot harder to choose between when you finally reach that level up. i feel more in control of my character's development than i did in Fallout 3. the setting is more compelling also. the real downside is that the game is just so god damn buggy. also, it's kind of funny that these complaints weren't lobbed at GTA: Vice City, and GTA: San Andreas. they were using the same engine as GTA III, the same combat system (with improvements), a new story and cast of characters, and a new city to explore. Fallout: New Vegas uses the same engine as Fallout 3, the same combat system (with improvements), a new story and cast of characters, and a new city to explore. *shrugs* i'm eagerly looking forward to Bethesda dropping their outdated Gamebryo engine, but if they wanted to release one more Fallout: >insert subtitle here<(Chicago and the surrounding area could be a really cool location for a Fallout game), i'd maybe pick it up. granted they REALLY did some bug sweeps. my wife was playing earlier, and the game froze while she was in the middle of a conversation INSIDE of a building. that shit just isn't cool.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.