Poll

Favorite Fallout Game?

Fallout
2 (6.1%)
Fallout 2
0 (0%)
Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel
0 (0%)
Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel
1 (3%)
Fallout 3
6 (18.2%)
Fallout: New Vegas
24 (72.7%)

Total Members Voted: 33

Author Topic: Fallout Thread - Motherloving Fallout 4  (Read 20300 times)

New Vegas is #1 ENDOOFSTORY

Thing is I don't know which game has a better setting. What do you guys think? I personally prefer Fallout 3's more creative take on cities, such as Megaton and the battleship place? (it's been a while) along with the weird towns such as the one with only kids running it and the Harold cult having just nature around is a bit refreshing

Thing is I don't know which game has a better setting. What do you guys think? I personally prefer Fallout 3's more creative take on cities, such as Megaton and the battleship place? (it's been a while) along with the weird towns such as the one with only kids running it and the Harold cult having just nature around is a bit refreshing
don't forget the republic of dave and tranquility lane
(btw the battleship place is rivet city)

I've been to multiple places from Fallout NV. I've been to
  • Searchlight
  • Hoover Dam
  • The Strip (New Vegas)
  • Jean
  • Primm
  • Mojave outpost.

I've been close to Goodsprings and Nipton (Literally one turn off a road would take me to them)

Thing is I don't know which game has a better setting. What do you guys think? I personally prefer Fallout 3's more creative take on cities, such as Megaton and the battleship place? (it's been a while) along with the weird towns such as the one with only kids running it and the Harold cult having just nature around is a bit refreshing
fallout 3 was way more polished than NV was, much better art direction and it was all really memorable
NV has really only one cool city, and it's New Vegas. They're all just too empty

fallout 3 was way more polished than NV was, much better art direction and it was all really memorable
NV has really only one cool city, and it's New Vegas. They're all just too empty
New Vegas had a better story, and Obsidian was only given like 11 months to make it. Bethesda can forget off with their 6 year development time.

New Vegas had a better story, and Obsidian was only given like 11 months to make it. Bethesda can forget off with their 6 year development time.
were it not for how bethesda gimped obsidian, NV would be an undeniably better game than F3
that both games are comparably good is miracle considering the amount of time it took to make NV. really shows obsidian's skill as a developer

New Vegas had a better story, and Obsidian was only given like 11 months to make it. Bethesda can forget off with their 6 year development time.

I Agree.

Fallout 3's story in a nutshell: Your dad went missing, you go find him, you go figure out who controls the water.

Fallout Nv's story in a nutshell: You are Courier 6, you know nothing of your past. You must complete the job given to you before being shot in the head by a fancy ass richardwad, aswell as figure out who controls the Hoover Dam for power of the Mojave desert.

Fallout 3 had one DLC that continues with the idea of working in the story, while the others were like "Of forget us, we're bored.. how about ALIENS AS A NEW DLC! Genius!"

NV had the correct idea, keep with the idea of the Courier, do jobs and stuff to keep paid and known. Like Honest hearts, where you work with a caravan and explore an completely unknown area that is full of story. Or Dead money, where you explore an "abandoned" casino plaza thing. Old world blues was slightly out of touch, but it explained those damn nightstalker.. Cat/wolf/snake things, aswell as those wacky plants. Lonesome road though, just.. damn.

I prefer FO3's setting but NV's story, I'll take decrepit buildings over the desert any day of the week

Making permanent decisions about my allegiance in NV always gave me a hard time, seeing all those quests getting marked as "failed" after reaching a certain point feels wrong

I've played FO3 to death but despite owning all the DLC I don't think I ever played The Pitt, and I don't own any of the DLC for NV but plan on picking it up next time it goes on sale

I feel like I would enjoy 3's area and scenery, but I'm not planning on getting it because forget that story.
NV is p fun tho

I feel like I would enjoy 3's area and scenery, but I'm not planning on getting it because forget that story.
NV is p fun tho

Avoiding FO3 purely because the story is dumb is itself pretty dumb; the sidequests, setting, and pretty much everything else more than makes up for it

You can pick up the full package for a couple bucks when it goes on sale

I think i would've like NV more had it been more of a desert and less a rocky sandbox. fallout and hulking sand dunes with tons of sand flowing through your eyes would've been cool, but instead it had alot of dirt and rocks with sand mixed in and i was kinda disappointed

atmosphere was not as good as 3

New Vegas is boring

i got the party hat from devils throat in new vegas and my game crashed not more than 3 minutes later and it pissed me right off.

also the mod that let me play after the final quest done goof'd and gave me 3 ED-E's.

Chris Avellone is the reason this franchise is so damn good.
Tim Cain and Chris Taylor were some pretty influential people too. Fallout wasn't about finding the biggest baddest shiniest plasma rifle, nor was it about exploring and sight seeing. The quests in the old games had more variety as they more than just stupid fetch quests. The stories were about good and evil clashing, they were about the people that lived an ambiguously moral/immoral world shaped by the aftermath of ww3.

It wasn't about the wasteland either, it was what life was about after the bombs, how over time things will change. The barren lawless desert of Fallout 1 became a world of emerging civilizations and rediscovery, by new vegas you have a new nation and the wasteland being mostly tamed by civilization. Groups like the brotherhood of steal were becoming irrelevant and lost sight of their original goals, the once common and savage raiders were pushed far east, city states now under one rule.

I think i would've like NV more had it been more of a desert and less a rocky sandbox. fallout and hulking sand dunes with tons of sand flowing through your eyes would've been cool, but instead it had alot of dirt and rocks with sand mixed in and i was kinda disappointed

atmosphere was not as good as 3
Well NV is a continuation of FO1 and FO2. Most of the far western states are mostly rural and undeveloped. In California most of the urban centers are along the coastline while cities further inland and more spaced out and much smaller. The rest of them around them is mostly farmland, foothills, mountains, and a desert like climate. Also contrary to popular belief, there would not have been as much debris left behind as FO3 would have you believe considering most houses back then were wood and nails. Plant life would continue, look at Chernobyl.

Avoiding FO3 purely because the story is dumb is itself pretty dumb; the sidequests, setting, and pretty much everything else more than makes up for it

You can pick up the full package for a couple bucks when it goes on sale
Most of the quests were mostly fetch quests and grindy dungeon crawls. Morias quests for example were mostly fetch quests, going to galaxy radio was a dungeon crawl, going into that skyscraper to save the mercs from the mutants was dungeon crawl.

Weapons fired in a unrealistic cone pattern with every 3 bullet hitting the target with the projectile the size of a large golf ball with the damage of a nerf dart.

The setting was full of plot holes considering that jet was a west coast drug made to replace the narcotics of the old world that couldn't be manufactured in the post nuclear world and had disappeared from existence after FO2. Yet you can find it all over the place like it was manufactured prior to the bombs falling.

Super mutants were the product of government made virus used by master on west coast, the mutants were hostile because they were under his control. Yet in fallout three they only exist because some private company who had no idea was or did decided to make a vault to use on its own people. The mutants of FO1 had large hands and could only use melee weapons, big guns, and energy weapons, however in FO3 that can use anything regardless of size. The mutants were grey or green, but the east coast ones have yellow skin and attack people for no reason. They are basically brainless orcs whereas the west coast ones were organized brutes who obeyed a false god.

The brotherhood of steal was a group of technophiles that wanted to preserve technology, yet there vision of preserving became hoarding. They had no intentions of helping people, they also did not welcome outsiders. They were basically inbreeds who and were a dyeing organization by FO2's time. New Vegas showed reflected this very well. Bethesda's idea was to make them the generic good guys to play as literally the white knights while they used the already generic enclave(which shouldn't even exist) as the black knights.

Thing is I don't know which game has a better setting. What do you guys think? I personally prefer Fallout 3's more creative take on cities, such as Megaton and the battleship place? (it's been a while) along with the weird towns such as the one with only kids running it and the Harold cult having just nature around is a bit refreshing
Aircraft Carrier*
You had some pretty unique towns in Fallout 1 which were Shady Towns(adobe buildings, middle eastern themed), Junk Town, The Hub(Trading city, city of shady folks), Boneyard(formerly los angeles, city full of cults, raiders, and mutants), and Necropolois(formerly Bakersfields, full of ghouls).

Also FNV locations in real life
Goodsprings
Primm
Novac
Nitpon
« Last Edit: March 29, 2015, 02:05:54 AM by Harm94 »