Hot-Take: New-Vegas is probably the worst modern Fallout.

[MonkeyMummyMoney]

Before I develop this post any further I want to get my point on the game clear: I love it. I like it more then Fallout 3.

But, I think it's probably the weakest of the modern Fallouts, Fallout 4 being the strongest.

I'll explain:
Fallout 3 is a game that doesn't know exactly what it wants to be, with bad gun-play, bad world design, little-to-no immersion and almost no reactivity. On top of all that it's graphically dated, even when it came out it was dated. It's like 1980 cheap Hasbro Action-Figures without the charm of them being actual toys.

New-Vegas has all the same problems as Fallout 3 with mechanics that come off half-baked and a world and story that were so aggressively rushed any writer or developer that took even an ounce of pride in their work would have bounced once they got hit with the 18 month time-frame.

It's biggest problem though is how it tried to mix the Lore of Interplay Era with Bethesda Era: In light of Fallout 4, it makes no sense. Infact I would argue that NV shouldn't even be considered Canon because of the holes.

In Interplay Fallout the Master created Super-Mutants on the West-Coast.
In Bethesda Fallout the Master isn't mentioned outside NV and it's implied the Institute made them but then gave up at some point.

It would explain why Bethesda Era Mutants are so much dumber and crude and how they ended up in the Capital Wastelands so quickly.

Some may argue "The Wiki says The Master is mentioned in Fallout 3, therefore he is canon!"

But in reality the very excerpt the wiki uses as proof is just something Harold Said and even then he doesn't mention the master by name. At best I view it as an Easter-Egg. You wouldn't say Dr.Who is now Fallout Canon because the Tardis appears as a random encounter in the earlier games would you?

Now before people argue over which is the better writer Bethesda or Obsidian, I think they realistically aren't any different. At best Obsidian wasn't Jaded by the industry when they worked on NV, but if Outerworlds is any indicator they since have. Not ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on that game either, I enjoyed it.

If roles were reversed and Bethesda went under and Interplay came out on top, the games would largely be the same at this point. Watered down Action RPGs stripped of any degree of complexity with a unspoken design philosophy of "Why make something ourselves when the players can make it for us?" The only difference is the Lore would be different.

To summarize: I don't dislike NV or Fallout 3 or really even Fallout 4.
I just think in the context of the rest of the games in the Bethesda Era Fallouts (As I think it's awful stupid to compare Interplay era to Bethesda Era. Completely different games. One is a 1st person Action RPG, the other is a Top-Down CRPG. Both are made by different companies, both have different lores, they just share the name.) NV is the worst because it doesn't really do anything new and breaks both Fallout Universes Lore.

[misters82]

Fallout New Vegas is strongest Fallout game.

[Spartykins]

Bethesda has always been afraid to deviate from having specific things in their fallout titles, probably for fear that fans would think it has zero to do with the original titles

ironically this leads to tons of plot holes and weird choices on the parts of some factions and creatures they choose to reuse, which upsets the fans anyways

Bethesda's original factions and ideas aren't bad for the most part and I wish they'd go that route instead of "bos, mutants, enclave, ect"

though nothing can really be as bad as 76, that's for sure

[Unseen]

I thought FO3 mentioned the geck and some lore from FO1/2 in the overseers terminal?

I also find the graphics in 3 more structured than NV, and also think the storyline in NV is all over the place, doesn't focus much on the main theme of FO, and feels like an open ended wild west game that was given a FO coat. The good thing about NV, mods, gameplay, and replay. Sometimes a bit to much, the game was obviously padded like a large pillow to artificially lengthen gameplay.

FO3 got me into the series, I got the first 2 on disc and the gameplay never sucked me in. The storyline for both 1 and 2 are interesting tho would rather watch ytube lore videos the gameplay is very dull. And this is coming from someone who likes oldschool NES rpgs.

[psychotron666]

Originally posted by Unseen:

I thought FO3 mentioned the geck and some lore from FO1/2 in the overseers terminal?

I also find the graphics in 3 more structured than NV, and also think the storyline in NV is all over the place, doesn't focus much on the main theme of FO, and feels like an open ended wild west game that was given a FO coat. The good thing about NV, mods, gameplay, and replay. Sometimes a bit to much, the game was obviously padded like a large pillow to artificially lengthen gameplay.

FO3 got me into the series, I got the first 2 on disc and the gameplay never sucked me in. The storyline for both 1 and 2 are interesting tho would rather watch ytube lore videos the gameplay is very dull. And this is coming from someone who likes oldschool NES rpgs.

What's the main theme of Fallout?

Because Bethesda's fallout 3 post apocalyptic theme is not it. Since fallout 1 and 2 the theme was post-post apocalypse, and about society rebuilding itself afterwards.
Fallout 3 is designed like the bombs went off 20 years ago, not 200. Same with fallout 4. Absolute stagnation for 200 years and then some military guy with no engineering background comes by and builds an empire in a couple weeks in fallout 4. In 3 nobody has done anything to progress in 200 years.

New Vegas fits the fallout theme far more than Fallout 3 and 4 which might as well be set in an alternative universe (due to the nonsensical lore breaking Bethesda did).

If you actually played 1 and 2 you'd know this. New Vegas is a direct sequel to 2. Fallout 3 is a reboot that the creators skimmed over a wiki and played a couple hours of 1 and 2 and then made them game, hence why so much discombobulated lore and information and mess in fallout 3 and 4 lore. (Regulators make no sense, changed super mutants lore, changed origins of ghouls, enclave being defeated then going to the east coast and creating an AI to be their president even though they are a democracy, and then having power struggles with the AI, and so much more).

[Salamand3r-]

Originally posted by psychotron666:

Originally posted by Unseen:

I thought FO3 mentioned the geck and some lore from FO1/2 in the overseers terminal?

I also find the graphics in 3 more structured than NV, and also think the storyline in NV is all over the place, doesn't focus much on the main theme of FO, and feels like an open ended wild west game that was given a FO coat. The good thing about NV, mods, gameplay, and replay. Sometimes a bit to much, the game was obviously padded like a large pillow to artificially lengthen gameplay.

FO3 got me into the series, I got the first 2 on disc and the gameplay never sucked me in. The storyline for both 1 and 2 are interesting tho would rather watch ytube lore videos the gameplay is very dull. And this is coming from someone who likes oldschool NES rpgs.

What's the main theme of Fallout?

Because Bethesda's fallout 3 post apocalyptic theme is not it. Since fallout 1 and 2 the theme was post-post apocalypse, and about society rebuilding itself afterwards.
Fallout 3 is designed like the bombs went off 20 years ago, not 200. Same with fallout 4. Absolute stagnation for 200 years and then some military guy with no engineering background comes by and builds an empire in a couple weeks in fallout 4. In 3 nobody has done anything to progress in 200 years.

New Vegas fits the fallout theme far more than Fallout 3 and 4 which might as well be set in an alternative universe (due to the nonsensical lore breaking Bethesda did).

If you actually played 1 and 2 you'd know this. New Vegas is a direct sequel to 2. Fallout 3 is a reboot that the creators skimmed over a wiki and played a couple hours of 1 and 2 and then made them game, hence why so much discombobulated lore and information and mess in fallout 3 and 4 lore. (Regulators make no sense, changed super mutants lore, changed origins of ghouls, enclave being defeated then going to the east coast and creating an AI to be their president even though they are a democracy, and then having power struggles with the AI, and so much more).

Said it all perfectly. Post-post-apocalypse is the core of Fallout, not post-apocalypse.

[Graceful Jabberwocky]

disagreed

[Unseen]

I think you are leaving out the core atmosphere of a world ravaged by nuclear apoc. Yes nv shows obvious signs of a nuclear catastrophe but not like fo3. And why should I push myself to play 2 old isometric games if the gameplay is real boring and I’m turn based shooting rats with little much else? I enjoyed Zelda 1 and Diablo 1. Fo1/2 have interesting story lines but the gameplay didn’t appeal to me at all. So yea for me first good fo was 3. And nv was actually the other one, and the one you all prefer as well, even tho it’s using fo3s very system.

Also I think many of you fo1-2 fans and nv fans seem to think all of us followed fo cause of 1 and 2. No it was Bethesda and morrowind for me.

[psychotron666]

Diablo 1 and Zelda 1 aren't examples of deep RPGs. Zelda 1 isn't even an rpg and is a very simple game and Diablo 1 is am extremely shallow arpg that consists of clicking on things until they're dead.

Fallout 1 and 2 are so much more than killing rats. That'd be like saying fallout 3 is just killing rad roaches because you only played the first 20 minutes and that's all you do in that time.

[psychotron666]

Originally posted by Unseen:

I think you are leaving out the core atmosphere of a world ravaged by nuclear apoc. Yes nv shows obvious signs of a nuclear catastrophe but not like fo3. And why should I push myself to play 2 old isometric games if the gameplay is real boring and I’m turn based shooting rats with little much else? I enjoyed Zelda 1 and Diablo 1. Fo1/2 have interesting story lines but the gameplay didn’t appeal to me at all. So yea for me first good fo was 3. And nv was actually the other one, and the one you all prefer as well, even tho it’s using fo3s very system.

Also I think many of you fo1-2 fans and nv fans seem to think all of us followed fo cause of 1 and 2. No it was Bethesda and morrowind for me.

I started fallout with fallout 3 as well. Well actually I got fallout 1 and played some of it just before 3 released cus I was a huge Bethesda fan at the time. But fallout 3 was really my first intro to the series. It was very cool and wonderful when I first played. But since playing other fallouts and learning the lore and theme, I realized fallout 3 is a sub par Fallout game (still a decent game overall).

And replay value is pretty much non existent.. any time I try to replay it, I get like an hour or two and put it down for another 5 years, and go back to playing morrowind or new Vegas instead.

I still consider 1 and 2 better RPGs though, after really playing them after 3.

And morrowind was my number 1 game of all time for years (it's still a top 3 for me). And I've played all the Bethesda games to death.

Of all games that have Bethesda's name on it, fallout new Vegas is the closest to morrowind design philosophy of any of their games, including oblivion or Skyrim.
So if you're a morrowind fan, give new Vegas more time. I too was unimpressed by new Vegas when first playing and thought 3 was better. After another play through (and later dozens more) I realize new Vegas is far superior in every way.

My top games of all time are pillars of eternity 2, fallout new Vegas, and morrowind, just as a perspective.

[Vex Hilarius]

Definetly a hot take but surprisingly not one based on nothingness.

[Vex Hilarius]

Originally posted by Unseen:

doesn't focus much on the main theme of FO

Imma be real with you champ. The main theme of Fallout isn't plundering dungeons and exploring a destroyed world frozen in time. It's about civilization coming up from the ashes of nuclear devastation and the factions that come with it. Something that 1, 2 and NV show. You can't say NV doesn't match the theme but Fallout 3 does when you know very little about the older games. Anyone who actually paid attention to the lore knows 3 does not fit at all with the series. No story or series is without plot holes but NV definetly stays truer to the series than anything Bethesda has made.

[Salamand3r-]

Originally posted by Vex Hilarius:

Originally posted by Unseen:

doesn't focus much on the main theme of FO

Imma be real with you champ. The main theme of Fallout isn't plundering dungeons and exploring a destroyed world frozen in time. It's about civilization coming up from the ashes of nuclear devastation and the factions that come with it. Something that 1, 2 and NV show. You can't say NV doesn't match the theme but Fallout 3 does when you know very little about the older games. Anyone who actually paid attention to the lore knows 3 does not fit at all with the series. No story or series is without plot holes but NV definetly stays truer to the series than anything Bethesda has made.

In that regard, FO76 actually does a better job than any other Bethesda Fallout game.

Scary.

[Graceful Jabberwocky]

Originally posted by Vex Hilarius:

Imma be real with you champ. The main theme of Fallout isn't plundering dungeons and exploring a destroyed world frozen in time. It's about civilization coming up from the ashes of nuclear devastation and the factions that come with it.

if that's true then 4 and 76 are the most thematic fallout games lol

[Salamand3r-]

Originally posted by Graceful Jabberwocky:

Originally posted by Vex Hilarius:

Imma be real with you champ. The main theme of Fallout isn't plundering dungeons and exploring a destroyed world frozen in time. It's about civilization coming up from the ashes of nuclear devastation and the factions that come with it.

if that's true then 4 and 76 are the most thematic fallout games lol

Nah, FO4 breaks down because of the timescale, especially now that FO76 exists. It doesn't make sense that this ♥♥♥♥ already hasn't been done by the time FO4 rolls around.

I don't think people really have a conception of how much people actually get done in 200 years, even in ♥♥♥♥♥♥ conditions. The collective cities of the United States we mostly all built in that amount of time.

[soyjak gaming]

all fallout games good.
theres no best.
each has ups and downs.