New Vegas is the exception

[Mechenyi]

This is going to be a bit ramble-y, but I've come to the realization that New Vegas is simply the shining exception to an honestly pretty mid series. Don't get me wrong, as someone who's put hundreds of hours into even the worst games in the series, and a loyal toddslop consoomer, I love all fallout games(even 76)... But it's become pretty obvious to me that the series, under both Bethesda and Black Isle, isn't very remarkable, and I think its popularity mostly stems from the (at the time)underused setting.

People always say that New Vegas is good only because it was "made by the original dev team", but most of the things about NV that people love weren't in the original games, and for the most part, weren't made by the original devs either. That's not to say that the originals were bad anyway, I personally think F2 has the best sound design of any game I've played, just that they aren't as extraordinary as people make them out as, and definitely don't deserve to be placed on NV's level. For example, a lot of the choices that you make in F1/2 are barely any less shallow than the ones you make in F3/4, 99% of the Characters you meet are basically generic NPCs and the few that aren't are b-flick caricatures with barely any nuance, the constant bombardment of pop culture references is cringe as ♥♥♥♥(people at the time even complained about how F2 was for this) and would be rightfully soyjak'd into oblivion if it released today, and there's hardly any tile variation across the entire map compared to other pre-rendered 3D games of the time(fallout 2 sort of rectified this.)

I think it's more correct to say that NV is good because it was written by two extremely talented people, using an already established base(fallout 3) that was already decent and fun to play, so they could focus on making already *good* things about the game *great*, while also bringing back aspects of the originals that were great like the sound design.

[Ladez]

So, Fallout: New Vegas is the synthesis to the Interplay Fallout/Bethesda Fallout dialectic?

[Vex Hilarius]

Nah, Fallout 1 and 2 are still very good.

Also, tl;dr

[Mechenyi]

Originally posted by Vex Hilarius:

Nah, Fallout 1 and 2 are still very good.

Also, tl;dr

Yeah they're good, but they aren't amazing, and they definitely aren't the reason NV is as good as it is.

tl;dr is fallout as a whole is kinda mid fr no cap, but new vegas is lowkey bussin ong

[black jack]

fr cant even play this game without getting bored in the first 10 min gotta have some family guy clips goin on to keep me playin.

[Mechenyi]

Originally posted by Mattmoo:

It’s all good

*mostly

oh yeah, like I said, I play the ♥♥♥♥ out of all of them. I'm just sayin, I can recognize that most of the series is just slop, even before todd got his claws sunk into it.

To clarify, I'd put the original Fallout games on the same level as the newer Wasteland games. They're good games, definitely worth playing through a few times. Are they le hidden gems that made the series so noteworthy? No, not really.

[Sana-kan]

I can't disagree actually. Though I personally do appreciate Fallout 1 alot for what it did.
It's the Bethesda ones I generally don't like or am very critical about, I do think Fallout 3 is fine-ish in a vacuum however.

[Dashurohem]

I never played the first Fallouts, but I did play Fallout 3, Morrowind, and most recently, The Outer Worlds. I like them all very much, but I also played them on consoles. I cant seem to get interested in Fallout New Vegas even though it looks like an immersive game that was passionately created by a team that cared about their project.
I think it's because I bought Fallout NV on steam when it was heavily discounted, but I have more fun playing these types of immersive games on a console hooked up to a nice TV.
Maybe I'll buy this again on the Xbox and try it there.

[ClancyDamon]

Originally posted by Ladez:

So, Fallout: New Vegas is the synthesis to the Interplay Fallout/Bethesda Fallout dialectic?

Ave. True to Toddsaer.

But seriously, holy christ, my mind is reeling from this.

[ClancyDamon]

Originally posted by Mechenyi:

...For example, a lot of the choices that you make in F1/2 are barely any less shallow than the ones you make in F3/4, 99% of the Characters you meet are basically generic NPCs and the few that aren't are b-flick caricatures with barely any nuance, the constant bombardment of pop culture references is cringe as ♥♥♥♥(people at the time even complained about how F2 was for this) and would be rightfully soyjak'd into oblivion if it released today...

Gotta heavily disagree with this. Yes, it was annoying to deal with Monty Python sketches every 30 minutes in F2, but that was legitimately a bug. Even if that wasn't the case, you really need to understand that things were different back then. It wasn't quite as cringy to reference pop culture back then, it was fairly unique. This is one of those situations where you're applying modern standards to a work that is from a time where those standards didn't exist. Hell, F2, was kind of a pioneer in that regard.

But even with that in place, you have a lot of significant choices in F2 that are story based. I mean hell, the Vault 13 Geckos alone are a big deal.

What I will agree with you on is something I don't think you really clarified. Bethesda, for all of their faults, are really good at fun and addicting gameplay. New Vegas benefits from the Bethesda model of gameplay. It brings in the actual plot and choices and consequences, and combines it with blowing up radscorpions with an automatic grenade launcher. So, you hit the best of all worlds in that regard.

[Ζiоqch]

new vegas doesn't have frank horrigan tho

[Mathius]

Meh. Fallout NV isn't even my favorite Fallout game. It was my first Fallout game. I tried to go back and play 1 and 2, but despite everyone saying how they're "great RPGs," good luck with those if you don't like the combat.

I think I understand a little of what you're saying though. I think Chris Avellone voiced his concerns with this when he wanted to nuke everything in Fallout New Vegas.

Fallout is based on a post apocalyptic world and as such, it has to remain stagnant. Too much progress and it loses those PA elements, so we're stuck jumping from location to location as short periods of time pass, or time resets for a different game.

It doesn't help that Bethesda is apparently completely incapable of developing an original, good, faction, so they keep rehashing the same crap over and over again: Super Mutants. Brotherhood of Steel. Enclave. Let's keep doing it over and over again.

I couldn't help but roll my eyes when people thought "The Responders" was a good faction, as if turning first responders into a PA faction wasn't the most generic thing. Of course I guess it's better than the Wastelanders "Settlers vs. Raiders". No, that's literally the name of the factions.

[ClancyDamon]

Originally posted by Mathius:

Meh. Fallout NV isn't even my favorite Fallout game. It was my first Fallout game. I tried to go back and play 1 and 2, but despite everyone saying how they're "great RPGs," good luck with those if you don't like the combat.

What's wrong with the combat? Serious question.

It can't be the isometric turn-based thing. Atom RPG and Turnograd were released only a few years ago, so that style is not only still viable, but loved. And christ on a cross, what really is the difference between F1/F2 and Baldur's Gate 3 aside from animations/graphics?

[Mathius]

Originally posted by ClancyDamon:

What's wrong with the combat? Serious question.

It can't be the isometric turn-based thing. Atom RPG and Turnograd were released only a few years ago, so that style is not only still viable, but loved. And christ on a cross, what really is the difference between F1/F2 and Baldur's Gate 3 aside from animations/graphics?

The problem is, I don't have any interest in combat in these types of games, which is why I never have a problem with OP builds. In Fallout 1 and 2, you can't avoid combat, and if you try to make a non combat build, you suffer.

I made it pretty far in Fallout 1 without combat being an issue... that is until the first time you run into Super Mutants, who come in groups of three, armed with mini-guns.

Fallout 2, the first time I ran into Geckos I was save scumming, that was AFTER struggling through the tutorial temple.

Not to mention that era of games was just tougher anyways.

[ClancyDamon]

So, you just want a truly pacifist run RPG? That's fair. Unlikely, but fair.

It's been well over 20 years, I can't remember if F1/F2 advertised themselves as having that. I really think that the number of RPGs that offered that as a viable option can be counted on one hand. Top of my head, I can only can think of Arcanum, and I don't even know if that is truly pacifist. I've never tried.

[Mathius]

Originally posted by ClancyDamon:

So, you just want a truly pacifist run RPG? That's fair. Unlikely, but fair.

It's been well over 20 years, I can't remember if F1/F2 advertised themselves as having that. I really think that the number of RPGs that offered that as a viable option can be counted on one hand. Top of my head, I can only can think of Arcanum, and I don't even know if that is truly pacifist. I've never tried.

I will say that the menu-based combat really aggravates this. I know there was a "run away" option (which IIRC, still required you to have enough agility points?).

But having to stop playing the game for combat, really takes you out of it. It's like the really old school RPG's like the original USA Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior, Zelda II the Adventures of Link, that had the random encounters. Or even later games like FF7-10.

You're just plodding along trying to find a quest item, or solve a puzzle and you're constantly being side tracked with battle sequences.