Why Fallout: New Vegas will be better than Fallout 3

So many of us had a great time with fallout 3 such as I but when I heard the new Fallout: New Vegas would be made not by Bethesda but by Obsidian, I was psyched. Obsidian software was founded by the leftover members from Black Isle and Interplay, the makers of the original Fallout 1 and 2 + tons of other fantastic games like freespace 2 and Descent. The reason this will be so much better is because its being made by the orginal devs of Fallout. The vision they had from the orignal will be ever greater in this one and not a replica like Fallout 3. I can't wait to see how they continue the Fallout storyline.

So many of us had a great time with fallout 3 such as I but when I heard the new Fallout: New Vegas would be made not by Bethesda but by Obsidian, I was psyched. Obsidian software was founded by the leftover members from Black Isle and Interplay, the makers of the original Fallout 1 and 2 + tons of other fantastic games like freespace 2 and Descent. The reason this will be so much better is because its being made by the orginal devs of Fallout. The vision they had from the orignal will be ever greater in this one and not a replica like Fallout 3. I can't wait to see how they continue the Fallout storyline.

Panther501

[QUOTE="Panther501"]

So many of us had a great time with fallout 3 such as I but when I heard the new Fallout: New Vegas would be made not by Bethesda but by Obsidian, I was psyched. Obsidian software was founded by the leftover members from Black Isle and Interplay, the makers of the original Fallout 1 and 2 + tons of other fantastic games like freespace 2 and Descent. The reason this will be so much better is because its being made by the orginal devs of Fallout. The vision they had from the orignal will be ever greater in this one and not a replica like Fallout 3. I can't wait to see how they continue the Fallout storyline.

XanderZane

[QUOTE="XanderZane"][QUOTE="Panther501"]

So many of us had a great time with fallout 3 such as I but when I heard the new Fallout: New Vegas would be made not by Bethesda but by Obsidian, I was psyched. Obsidian software was founded by the leftover members from Black Isle and Interplay, the makers of the original Fallout 1 and 2 + tons of other fantastic games like freespace 2 and Descent. The reason this will be so much better is because its being made by the orginal devs of Fallout. The vision they had from the orignal will be ever greater in this one and not a replica like Fallout 3. I can't wait to see how they continue the Fallout storyline.

aaronmullan

am I the only one who noticed an instant similarity between New Vegas and "project Van Buren" (the prototype for the original fallout 3). They both seem to take place in the same location, and their development teams seem to share many people. I believe the lead designers for Van Buren became execs at obsidein.

Fallout 3 was and still is one of my favourite games ever,such depth and polish.But i do trust the original devs to make a game that is even better

I like that Obsidian is making it but I dont care that they made the original Fallouts. Fallout 3 is so great they have to top that before I care about their "vision"

I like that Obsidian is making it but I dont care that they made the original Fallouts. Fallout 3 is so great they have to top that before I care about their "vision"

emorainbo

Trust me, Old "Fans" won't be so enthusiatic when they hear that New Vegas is going to have to SAME Gameplay as "Failout 3".

Still excited for it.

[QUOTE="emorainbo"]

I like that Obsidian is making it but I dont care that they made the original Fallouts. Fallout 3 is so great they have to top that before I care about their "vision"

mo0ksi

It's HIS Opinion after all.

Trust me, Old "Fans" won't be so enthusiatic when they hear that New Vegas is going to have to SAME Gameplay as "Failout 3".

Still excited for it.

gmc2u_64

Its not the gameplay that most fans didnt like. It was the crappy writing and the fact that ultimatly your actions had virtally no consequences.

Meh, I don't care who's making it. All I know is that more Fallout 3 content is = win in my eyes. So long as it's not slipshod work like Op. Anchorage or M. Zeta.Stevo_the_gamer

So what exactly is New Vegas? A completely new game? Or a really big expansion pack?

I am looking forward to it more as well. Fallout 3 was fun the first time through, but fell completely flat for me when I tried to play through it a second time. I am simply used to getting a lot more replay value out of RPGs and Fallout 3 just did not do it for me, personally. The post nuclear environment just started to feel TOO barren and bland after awhile.

Trust me, Old "Fans" won't be so enthusiatic when they hear that New Vegas is going to have to SAME Gameplay as "Failout 3".

Still excited for it.

gmc2u_64

I'm an old fan of Fallout 1+2 and I'm very enthusiastic about Fallout: New Vegas.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Meh, I don't care who's making it. All I know is that more Fallout 3 content is = win in my eyes. So long as it's not slipshod work like Op. Anchorage or M. Zeta.tagyhag

So what exactly is New Vegas? A completely new game? Or a really big expansion pack?

new game, thats made by the original developers of the series (or as close as you can possibly get at this point)

I predict New Vegas to be buggy, have a terrible ending, at least one case of amnesia and/or mistaken identity, and yet be satisfying overall.

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Meh, I don't care who's making it. All I know is that more Fallout 3 content is = win in my eyes. So long as it's not slipshod work like Op. Anchorage or M. Zeta.cobrax75

So what exactly is New Vegas? A completely new game? Or a really big expansion pack?

new game, thats made by the original developers of the series (or as close as you can possibly get at this point)

[QUOTE="XanderZane"][QUOTE="Panther501"]

So many of us had a great time with fallout 3 such as I but when I heard the new Fallout: New Vegas would be made not by Bethesda but by Obsidian, I was psyched. Obsidian software was founded by the leftover members from Black Isle and Interplay, the makers of the original Fallout 1 and 2 + tons of other fantastic games like freespace 2 and Descent. The reason this will be so much better is because its being made by the orginal devs of Fallout. The vision they had from the orignal will be ever greater in this one and not a replica like Fallout 3. I can't wait to see how they continue the Fallout storyline.

aaronmullan

I feel bad for them... Fallout 3 is amazing.

well if it doesn't play the same way then it will be an awesome game

Might I remind you guys that it was black isle aka obsidian now that made bauldurs gate dark alliance 2 and that game was epic. Fall out 3 new vegas will be epic too I bet.

Obsidian may have those members but it doesn't produce much of quality any more.

just cause you have members of a developer doesn't mean much look at free radical they tried to replicate the success of golden eye by pretty much copying golden eye with every time splitters release, then when they tried to do something different they made haze then went out of buisness.

Obsidian may have those members but it doesn't produce much of quality any more.

just cause you have members of a developer doesn't mean much look at free radical they tried to replicate the success of golden eye by pretty much copying golden eye with every time splitters release, then when they tried to do something different they made haze then went out of buisness.

WilliamRLBaker

Fallout new vegas could be good but im not sure since i know nearlynothing about it.

Might I remind you guys that it was black isle aka obsidian now that made bauldurs gate dark alliance 2 and that game was epic. Fall out 3 new vegas will be epic too I bet.

fistoflight

really? among all the ledgendary games black isles made you choose to focus on that one? that was probably the worst game they made.

Fallout 3 was awesome. They will have to outdo a very good game.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

Obsidian may have those members but it doesn't produce much of quality any more.

just cause you have members of a developer doesn't mean much look at free radical they tried to replicate the success of golden eye by pretty much copying golden eye with every time splitters release, then when they tried to do something different they made haze then went out of buisness.

toast_burner

Fallout new vegas could be good but im not sure since i know nearlynothing about it.

[QUOTE="gmc2u_64"]

Trust me, Old "Fans" won't be so enthusiatic when they hear that New Vegas is going to have to SAME Gameplay as "Failout 3".

Still excited for it.

cobrax75

Its not the gameplay that most fans didnt like. It was the crappy writing and the fact that ultimatly your actions had virtally no consequences.

2. You destroy a Major Town (Which get's rid of shops). That's a consequence.

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]

[QUOTE="gmc2u_64"]

Trust me, Old "Fans" won't be so enthusiatic when they hear that New Vegas is going to have to SAME Gameplay as "Failout 3".

Still excited for it.

gmc2u_64

Its not the gameplay that most fans didnt like. It was the crappy writing and the fact that ultimatly your actions had virtally no consequences.

2. You destroy a Major Town (Which get's rid of shops). That's a consequence.

1. Because the dialogue in the game is absolutly atrocious, its just unintresting, along with most of the side quests, which border on MMO quality quests.

2. The fact that, that was the best thing you could come up with is pathetic, destroying Megaton barely effects anything as it is. Fallout 1 + 2 had far more consequence than Fallout 3 did (which had none at all)

[QUOTE="gmc2u_64"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]

Its not the gameplay that most fans didnt like. It was the crappy writing and the fact that ultimatly your actions had virtally no consequences.

cobrax75

2. You destroy a Major Town (Which get's rid of shops). That's a consequence.

1. Because the dialogue in the game is absolutly atrocious, its just unintresting, along with most of the side quests, which border on MMO quality quests.

2. The fact that, that was the best thing you could come up with is pathetic, destroying Megaton barely effects anything as it is. Fallout 1 + 2 had far more consequence than Fallout 3 did (which had none at all)

2. Lay off me. I haven't played F3 since MZ.

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]

[QUOTE="gmc2u_64"]1. Why does everyone keep saying that F3 has Poor Writing?

2. You destroy a Major Town (Which get's rid of shops). That's a consequence.

gmc2u_64

1. Because the dialogue in the game is absolutly atrocious, its just unintresting, along with most of the side quests, which border on MMO quality quests.

2. The fact that, that was the best thing you could come up with is pathetic, destroying Megaton barely effects anything as it is. Fallout 1 + 2 had far more consequence than Fallout 3 did (which had none at all)

2. Lay off me. I haven't played F3 since MZ.

1. Play an actuall RPG and than come back and say Fallout 3 has good writing. The diologue is unintresting, and the side-quests are simply boring and uninspired. Go play a Bioware RPG to see what good Side quests look like. Not to mention they completly missed all the humor that the Fallout games were known for.

2. I just find it really funny that you think blowing up megaton actually has any consequence at all.

[QUOTE="gmc2u_64"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]

1. Because the dialogue in the game is absolutly atrocious, its just unintresting, along with most of the side quests, which border on MMO quality quests.

2. The fact that, that was the best thing you could come up with is pathetic, destroying Megaton barely effects anything as it is. Fallout 1 + 2 had far more consequence than Fallout 3 did (which had none at all)

cobrax75

2. Lay off me. I haven't played F3 since MZ.

1. Play an actuall RPG and than come back and say Fallout 3 has good writing. The diologue is unintresting, and the side-quests are simply boring and uninspired. Go play a Bioware RPG to see what good Side quests look like. Not to mention they completly missed all the humor that the Fallout games were known for.

2. I just find it really funny that you think blowing up megaton actually has any consequence at all.

2. REAL funny. :roll:

Not a fan of Obsidian. Kotor II was nowhere as good as Kotor, and Alpha Protocol looks meh.IronBass

Nowhere near? I found KoTOR 2 to be superior to be honest, but even at that there isn't anything much between the two. What was so drastically diffrent to make it "nowhere near as good"?

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]

[QUOTE="gmc2u_64"]1. Can you give me an example of this "Atrocious" Disalogue?

2. Lay off me. I haven't played F3 since MZ.

gmc2u_64

1. Play an actuall RPG and than come back and say Fallout 3 has good writing. The diologue is unintresting, and the side-quests are simply boring and uninspired. Go play a Bioware RPG to see what good Side quests look like. Not to mention they completly missed all the humor that the Fallout games were known for.

2. I just find it really funny that you think blowing up megaton actually has any consequence at all.

2. REAL funny. :roll:

1. Maybe if your experience with RPG's was limited to MMO's and Fallout 3. the diologue in the game lacked the humor and wit that was present in Fallout 1 The story wasnt very good, nor was it really well told (not to mention it was oddly similar to the story from the original games.)

2. It just goes to show your complete lack of experience with RPG's. I somehow doubt you have played any outside of the bethesda ones.

[QUOTE="gmc2u_64"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]

Its not the gameplay that most fans didnt like. It was the crappy writing and the fact that ultimatly your actions had virtally no consequences.

cobrax75

2. You destroy a Major Town (Which get's rid of shops). That's a consequence.

1. Because the dialogue in the game is absolutly atrocious, its just unintresting, along with most of the side quests, which border on MMO quality quests.

2. The fact that, that was the best thing you could come up with is pathetic, destroying Megaton barely effects anything as it is. Fallout 1 + 2 had far more consequence than Fallout 3 did (which had none at all)

Can you provide an example from F1/2 that had more impact than blowing up an entire town, which is about 1 of 3 major settlements in that area of the wastelands?

Therewern't that many major descisions in Fallout 1/2, more roleplaying yes, butthe quality and features of the game/s are greatly exagerated. I personally thought that Fallout was broken by it's remarkably dull combatsystem which moved way to slowly for it's own good. You literally press a button at the bottom of the screen and aim at a character and you might hit it depending on level and what you have equiped. That's poor,very few RPGs have combat systems with as little depth as that.

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]

[QUOTE="gmc2u_64"]1. Why does everyone keep saying that F3 has Poor Writing?

2. You destroy a Major Town (Which get's rid of shops). That's a consequence.

WasntAvailable

1. Because the dialogue in the game is absolutly atrocious, its just unintresting, along with most of the side quests, which border on MMO quality quests.

2. The fact that, that was the best thing you could come up with is pathetic, destroying Megaton barely effects anything as it is. Fallout 1 + 2 had far more consequence than Fallout 3 did (which had none at all)

Can you provide an example from F1/2 that had more impact than blowing up an entire town, which is about 1 of 3 major settlements in that area of the wastelands?

Therewern't that many major descisions in Fallout 1/2, more roleplaying yes, butthe quality and features of the game/s are greatly exagerated. I personally thought that Fallout was broken by it's remarkably dull combatsystem which moved way to slowly for it's own good. You literally press a button at the bottom of the screen and aim at a character and you might hit it depending on level and what you have equiped. That's poor,very few RPGs have combat systems with as little depth as that.

easily...back in the original Fallout, there was originally a set amount of time for game completion, depending on whether or not you took a certain action in the game (I believe it was telling someone the location of one of the vaults, thought I dont remember precisly) the amount of time you had for game completion could be altered.

and yes, I agree gameplay was far better in Fallout 3. Though to be fair all the 90's RPG's were pretty much exclusivly about story over gameplay.

[QUOTE="gmc2u_64"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]

1. Play an actuall RPG and than come back and say Fallout 3 has good writing. The diologue is unintresting, and the side-quests are simply boring and uninspired. Go play a Bioware RPG to see what good Side quests look like. Not to mention they completly missed all the humor that the Fallout games were known for.

2. I just find it really funny that you think blowing up megaton actually has any consequence at all.

cobrax75

2. REAL funny. :roll:

1. Maybe if your experience with RPG's was limited to MMO's and Fallout 3. the diologue in the game lacked the humor and wit that was present in Fallout 1 The story wasnt very good, nor was it really well told (not to mention it was oddly similar to the story from the original games.)

2. It just goes to show your complete lack of experience with RPG's. I somehow doubt you have played any outside of the bethesda ones.

2. This decade, I've played KOTOR 1/2, Jade Empire, Fable 1/2, Paper Mario 1/2/3,Super Mario RPG, Oblivion, Mass Effect, and Fallout 3. I'm also anticipating Mass Effect 2, Fallout: New Vegas, and Fable 3. Lack of experience huh?

Fallout 3 is a very good game, but considering Fallout 1 & 2, it was very disappointing. Fallout 3 doesn't have 10% of the depth of Fallout 2. Megaton and it's region is the only place that has some decent role-playing elements, the rest of the Washington D.C. was almost MMO-like, with just a few interesting NPCs and little choices during dialogs. Also, Fallout 3 choices/consequences system is ridiculous. You can kill/steal/blow up an entire city, and after you donate Purified Water to the thirsty guys outside towns eveyone forgets what you have done.

it's gonna have the same gameplay and engine as Fallout 3. :|

it's gonna have the same gameplay and engine as Fallout 3. :|

LeGoofyGoober

yes, but a different set of writers, which hopefully can come up with something more intresting.

It's not hard to literally crush Fallout 3 if it's built on a similar engine. They just have to add some decent dialogues, Fallout 3's were so ridiculously retarded a monkey's blabbering would have made much more logical sense, they were really embarassing.

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]

1. Because the dialogue in the game is absolutly atrocious, its just unintresting, along with most of the side quests, which border on MMO quality quests.

2. The fact that, that was the best thing you could come up with is pathetic, destroying Megaton barely effects anything as it is. Fallout 1 + 2 had far more consequence than Fallout 3 did (which had none at all)

cobrax75

Can you provide an example from F1/2 that had more impact than blowing up an entire town, which is about 1 of 3 major settlements in that area of the wastelands?

Therewern't that many major descisions in Fallout 1/2, more roleplaying yes, butthe quality and features of the game/s are greatly exagerated. I personally thought that Fallout was broken by it's remarkably dull combatsystem which moved way to slowly for it's own good. You literally press a button at the bottom of the screen and aim at a character and you might hit it depending on level and what you have equiped. That's poor,very few RPGs have combat systems with as little depth as that.

easily...back in the original Fallout, there was originally a set amount of time for game completion, depending on whether or not you took a certain action in the game (I believe it was telling someone the location of one of the vaults, thought I dont remember precisly) the amount of time you had for game completion could be altered.

and yes, I agree gameplay was far better in Fallout 3. Though to be fair all the 90's RPG's were pretty much exclusivly about story over gameplay.

They patched the timer out though. Regardless changing a time limit isn't a massive consequence, I consider a large alteration to an important landmark more impressive. The story in F2 was pretty poor aswell (Not as awful as F3 plot though.), and the sense of humour, while amusing, did very little to add to it. There is such a thing as too many pop culture refrences.There were quite a few RPGs with good combat systems in the late 90s aswell, butwith Fallout I just struggled tocope with the combat pace and it'sthe lack of depth.If the game had used a real time battlesystem like Diabloit would have been so much better.Pointing and clicking with a gun the waitinga minute is just painful. For that system to work you need to have somethng that can be equivelantto spells.

Obsidian > Bethesda. They know their Fallout more than a Bethesda.