Fallout: New Vegas

Fallout: New Vegas

View Stats:
Jack D. Ripper Jan 14, 2017 @ 4:49pm
What New Vegas lacks
Let me preface this by saying I'm a Bethesda baby, but have no beef with fans of the old games, and that NV was stellar. I have played it to the tune of about 10 times. I have just one big, gaping problem with it:

It doesn't feel very post-apocalyptic.

Vegas wasn't hit directly, and it's been 200 years since the War, so people have moved on and established new societies. Standards of living are almost pre-War, especially among NCR citizens.

Lonesome Road, short as it was, remedied this somewhat. That DLC makes you feel alone and desperate, in a world hell-bent on killing you.

This is why I liked 3 and even 4 almost better. Those games feel like the bombs fell just months or years prior. In NV, the Great War is a distant memory.

Does anyone here feel the same? Or if you disagree, please explain why?
Last edited by Jack D. Ripper; Jan 14, 2017 @ 4:52pm
< >
Showing 1-15 of 52 comments
Ladez Jan 14, 2017 @ 5:01pm 
It doesn't feel post-apocalyptic because it's not meant to. You said it yourself: the Great War was 200 years ago. The world is moving on. We like to call it post-post-apocalyptic for this reason. I much prefer this over the post-apocalyptic nature of FO3 and all the other post-apocalyptic video games out there.
Washell Jan 14, 2017 @ 5:05pm 
But 3 and 4 make no sense in that perspective, they dropped 200 years ago, and everything looks and feels like the immediate aftermath. If you want to do the immediate aftermath, fine! Don't call it 2277 but place it in 2097, when the first vaults open. If you're going for 2277, at least give the area 200 more years of history. That's why DC gets boring and New Vegas is full of small stories.
Belanos Jan 14, 2017 @ 5:22pm 
I agree with you there, NV is a bit too civilized for my liking. I really don't see that overall story line progressing any further and still be able to maintain a sense of a nuclear aftermath. But Washell has a point, Bethesda made a mistake placing the time frame for Fallout 3 when it did. The story should have taken place much earlier. But that wouldn't have allowed them to logically include the Enclave and the Brotherhood of Steel in the game.
Jack D. Ripper Jan 14, 2017 @ 5:22pm 
^I'll concede that's a valid point. The further we get from the War, the less believable it becomes that buildings remain un-looted and objects stay in the same place. I think future installments of Fallout should be set in years closer to the War.

However, that's the point of it being "post-nuclear". Most of humanity did not survive; it's the end of civilization as we know it. Fallout is supposed to be "a post-nuclear role-playing game". There isn't a lot of history in between, other than murder, pillage, and ♥♥♥♥. Humanity is back to the stone age.

Lemme put it this way: Obsidian (and Interplay in FO2, to a lesser degree) got the "post-nuclear" part wrong, while Bethesda got the "role-playing game" part wrong. I associate Fallout with the environment of 1 and 3: one wrong move, and you're history.
Carver Jan 14, 2017 @ 6:09pm 
I agree completely. l don't think New Vegas was all that 'post-apocalyptic', more than it was sort of a war story or something along those lines.

I always sorta felt it was meant to be set long after the inital destruction of the Great War and where civilization has made a come back (more or less) and the area of the Mojave is more of the 'frontier' and is a war zone in comparison to California and Caesar's territory.

Maybe somewhere along the lines of the western territory during U.S Manifest Destiny, where the land is still kinda wild, but it has elements of civilization as well.

With that said I don't think it not being really 'post-apocalyptic' is a bad thing, more than it just creates it's own feel and story.
red255 Jan 14, 2017 @ 10:47pm 
Originally posted by jrvankirk:
Does anyone here feel the same? Or if you disagree, please explain why?

Well as mentioned the obvious disagree ment was the bombs hit 200 years ago and people started rebuilding 150 years ago.

the difference would be like 1850s to 2000. thats 150 years of growth WITHOUT knowing where you where headed 150 years ago.

when you know what the target is, you can do more.

so yeah, what you want is not what this is. but game *IS* called fallout. Game should have more super mutants or powered armored people in it.

The antogonist of the Legion is pretty lacking. I mean sure they are evil slavers, but thats not really an ENDGAME threat. in fallout you deal with raiders and slavers at level 3-6. the endgame stuff should be in fallout 1 it was super mutants with a plan to take over the world.

In fallout 2, it was guys in power armor with an endboss who was a super mutant in power armor.

In fallout tactics it was robots.

the Bethesda games fallout 3 and 4 understood this. Didn't Make sense to have super mutants and enclave in Fallout 3. lore wise, but they were there because you needed scale.

you needed to start with raiding a super market for supplies and killing raiders ramp up to super mutants and talon company, and finish with enclave.

the story was barely coherent, but because it had that it didn't Need a coherent story as much.

New Vegas needed a villian. Legion... I just felt like a judge and executioner.
Vassago Rain Jan 15, 2017 @ 12:12am 
The problem is that Bethesda babies don't understand that 200 years is a very long time, and human beings are extremely good at making the most of a bad situation. Thus even in fallout 1, there's 'water merchants' who have a monopoly on clean water, which they're abusing to the point where they even forced the brotherhood of steel to make use of their services.

The Hub is called the hub for all the obvious reasons.

By fallout 2, NCR is a growing power of multiple cities, tribes, and communities, allied under one flag, and a single ruler: Tandi. She's doing all the political movements you'd expect to FORCE Vault city, an almost post-war technologically advanced isolated community, to join the NCR by paying a mob boss in new Reno big bucks under the table to recruit hardcore mercenary forces, who then pretend to be old fashioned raiders.

There's a kid in a basement making the most addictive drug ever, counting pre-war substances. He's sacrificing hundreds of slaves to refine it, and all these slaves are bought from the literal slave king Metzger in the Den, which is a dangerous place made of all the worst qualities of human beings, all the while Vault city has a plant inside Redding, which is the only settlement so far contacted that's mining gold. He was doing a swell job getting them to consider 'joining' Vault city, which wouldn't really be joining at all, but them getting annexed, but the appearance of jet ruined their plans.

But is Metzger really worse than Tandi, or even Lynette (first citizen of Vault city), who refuses to share their tech, even the medical one, with 'outsiders,' while making sure every pureblooded citizen has ample 'servants' to do menial tasks for them. These 'servants' aren't even allowed to look at the citizens. They keep their eyes unfocused while looking forward, and on the ground at all other times. and are primarily bought from the Den. Is any of this really as bad as what the Enclave is doing, or the desperate farmers in Modoc who're willing to murder an entire community of harmless people simply so they don't starve?

Well, since it's a fallout game, and the tagline isn't meant to be taken literally, but as a statement that inspired questions in me even as a child when I first played the game. The player character in fallout games is some random nobody who happens to be the right person, at the right time. Writers call this role 'agent of change.' You're not a super hero. You're the guy who gets to decide who actually happens in the rivalry with the mob boss (who has some pretty great ideas for expanding the city and making everybody richer) and the straight-edge army veteran's son (who doesn't believe in change at all, and kinda runs the whole city from top to bottom, ensuring no one gets ahead of anyone else). That's the first real quest in fallout 1, and it's in Junktown.

NV, like 1 and 2, is the exact same. You're an agent of change, the focus isn't on the apocalypse, or bombs, or memes, or funny violence, or whatever, but on people, and how they deal with their day to day activity in such a world. What values of men can actually be counted on to remain unspoiled, and what will get stretched in the name of progress. Different ideals often clash, like Caesar's way of ruling his legion, versus NCR's belief in old timey politics.

Meanwhile, in fallout 3, people are worshipping a comical cartoon bomb in the middle of their city, and there's a lol so funny ex dee quest where you have to help super heroes fight it out with each other.

Fallout 3 and 4 aren't fallout games. They might bear the name, but they're little more than elderscrolls games in disguise, and if 4 is any indication of Bethesda's current state, 5 will be even worse.

As far as I'm concerned, fallout's a trilogy, starting with 1, 2 being the sequel, and NV the last in the series.
Ladez Jan 15, 2017 @ 4:40am 
Originally posted by Vassago Rain:
*snip*
:Upvoter:
Chronolord Jan 15, 2017 @ 4:43am 
There are mods for 3 and 4 that make it look like 200 years have passed, and the respective areas have begun to recover. Just remember that they are Bethesda games, and the truly become good once the fans fix them.
Malvastor Jan 15, 2017 @ 4:56am 
Originally posted by red255:
Originally posted by jrvankirk:
Does anyone here feel the same? Or if you disagree, please explain why?

Well as mentioned the obvious disagree ment was the bombs hit 200 years ago and people started rebuilding 150 years ago.

the difference would be like 1850s to 2000. thats 150 years of growth WITHOUT knowing where you where headed 150 years ago.

when you know what the target is, you can do more.

so yeah, what you want is not what this is. but game *IS* called fallout. Game should have more super mutants or powered armored people in it.

The antogonist of the Legion is pretty lacking. I mean sure they are evil slavers, but thats not really an ENDGAME threat. in fallout you deal with raiders and slavers at level 3-6. the endgame stuff should be in fallout 1 it was super mutants with a plan to take over the world.

In fallout 2, it was guys in power armor with an endboss who was a super mutant in power armor.

In fallout tactics it was robots.

the Bethesda games fallout 3 and 4 understood this. Didn't Make sense to have super mutants and enclave in Fallout 3. lore wise, but they were there because you needed scale.

you needed to start with raiding a super market for supplies and killing raiders ramp up to super mutants and talon company, and finish with enclave.

the story was barely coherent, but because it had that it didn't Need a coherent story as much.

New Vegas needed a villian. Legion... I just felt like a judge and executioner.

The problem is a story doesn't need a clear-cut villain. Caesar's Legion is the most morally dark faction, but plenty of people will give arguments that it's the faction that's the most needed (but not deserved). A well-written, complex, story can present multiple factions without clearly defining one as the villain, and allow the player to choose which one they prefer and deal with the consequences of that choice. That's something New Vegas does excellently, and it's something 3 (I've just started playing; I like it, but it's no New Vegas) doesn't do. Practically from the moment you step out of the Vault you're informed that the Enclave and Super Mutants are Bad, and you know you're going to have to Stop Them. That's not bad in itself, but it's not the kind of story complexity or freedom of choice a lot of people play Fallout games for

As for threat level of the enemy, Caesar's Legion is far more dangerous than 3's Super Mutants, because they are actually building a civilization. They have an actual motivation besides loot and pillage.
Zeno Jan 15, 2017 @ 7:00am 
Ladez, Andrey, and Vassago have all hit the nail on the head. The reason NV doesn't feel like a post-apocalyptic game is because it isn't, and neither were Fallouts 1 and 2. Bethesda got it wrong, not Obsidian.
Jack D. Ripper Jan 15, 2017 @ 7:46am 
Originally posted by Vassago Rain:

1. NV, like 1 and 2, is the exact same. You're an agent of change, the focus isn't on the apocalypse, or bombs, or memes, or funny violence, or whatever, but on people, and how they deal with their day to day activity in such a world. What values of men can actually be counted on to remain unspoiled, and what will get stretched in the name of progress. Different ideals often clash, like Caesar's way of ruling his legion, versus NCR's belief in old timey politics.

2. Fallout 3 and 4 aren't fallout games. They might bear the name, but they're little more than elderscrolls games in disguise, and if 4 is any indication of Bethesda's current state, 5 will be even worse.

As far as I'm concerned, fallout's a trilogy, starting with 1, 2 being the sequel, and NV the last in the series.

FO4 does this exact same thing with the Brotherhood, Minutemen, Railroad, and Institute. Each of them have their side of the story to tell, and the way humanity should go, especially in the way of synths.

It's sheet laziness to say there is "no history" in the Commonwealth. Diamond City was founded in a ballpark, one guy has mistaken baseball for a gladiator death match, and the fear of synths began with what was called the "broken mask incident".

Goodneighbor, meanwhile, is a neighborhood where no behavior short of violence is acceptable (which is why the triggermen gang were exiled to Vault 114).

The Minutemen rose to power in 2180 when they defended Diamond City from super mutants. Now you may say muties on the East Coast contradicts canon, but remember we established that 200 years is a long time; enough time for super mutants to migrate from Vault 87 or even the West Coast to New England.

The factions in 4, in my opinion, we're more interesting than those in NV. NCR, Brotherhood, and Followers were the only Mojave factions I found likeable. The Legion are sexually-confused trugs, while the Omertas, Great Khans, and Van Graffs were utterly worthless; their attitudes of "hur durr, we're gangsters, don't mess with us!" prompted me to mop the floor with their corpses.

There's the issue of being an agent of change. I have no personal stake in the Mojave conflict. I'm just some dude who got shot while on my UPS route. Meanwhile in the Commonwealth, I have to choose between family and principles.

And Ulysses blaming me for the Divide getting blown up, so now he's going to blow up everything because he's angry about stuff? And his blathering about Couriers, the divide, bears, and bulls is what Fallout fans consider Hemingway-caliber writing?

Lastly, the gameplay of FO1 is entirely arbitrary. I can fire a shotgun from point blank and miss, but a raider can hit me with brass knuckles from 10 feet away and one-hit kill me, while I'm in combat armor. And Butch Harris attacks you when you say a deathclaw "doesn't sound like a big deal".
Last edited by Jack D. Ripper; Jan 15, 2017 @ 7:57am
black light Jan 15, 2017 @ 8:03am 
internal screaming intesifies
i could push myself to write an essay on how much i hate bethesda & todd howard and how they've ruined the perceptions of what a fallout game SHOULD be and thus cause nu-fallout fans to dislike the first two games and nv due to bethesdas blantant disregard for lore as well as using poor excuses to push generic ideas and bland characters and factions onto us, or i can just push this little video in that gives some in sight into how bethesda has ruined fallout as a whole
im gonna do the latter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLJ1gyIzg78
Jack D. Ripper Jan 15, 2017 @ 8:04am 
The fact that I liked 3 and 4, primarily because I was too young to play 1 and 2 when they came out and thus cut my teeth on Bethesda, seems to automatically make me a thought-criminal in Fallout fan circles. Geez, folks, can't I have an opinion?
black light Jan 15, 2017 @ 8:07am 
Originally posted by jrvankirk:
The fact that I liked 3 and 4, primarily because I was too young to play 1 and 2 when they came out and thus cut my teeth on Bethesda, seems to automatically make me a thought-criminal in Fallout fan circles. Geez, folks, can't I have an opinion?
i respect your opinions, genuinely and most of us do, and i understand youve come to enjoy a different breed of game due to experiencing 3 and 4 first
but theres this little ♥♥♥♥ inside of me the screams whenever i see things like this and i have to give in and at least give it some release or else i'll go crazy
< >
Showing 1-15 of 52 comments
Per page: 15 30 50

Date Posted: Jan 14, 2017 @ 4:49pm
Posts: 52