fodev.net

Other => FOnline:2238 Forum => Archives => Off-topic discussions => Topic started by: baaelSiljan on February 04, 2010, 05:57:27 pm

Title: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: baaelSiljan on February 04, 2010, 05:57:27 pm
Here You will find trailer:

http://bethblog.com/index.php/2010/02/04/fallout-new-vegas-teaser-trailer-now-online-watch-it-and-win/ (http://bethblog.com/index.php/2010/02/04/fallout-new-vegas-teaser-trailer-now-online-watch-it-and-win/)

IMHO it is shit, looks like Killzone, only robot is quite nice
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Izual on February 04, 2010, 06:59:41 pm
I knew it would be just as Fallout "shitty" 3 when one of their devs said "It will be the same sort of role-playing game experience seen in Fallout 3". I wouldn't believe it, but it seems Obsidian team is ready to do exactly the same Fallout as Fallout 3.
And what the hell does NCR flag near Las Vegas ?!
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: TommyTheGun on February 04, 2010, 07:00:46 pm
WHY ;( Why would they do such a horrible thing to me... AGAIN!?
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Bartosz on February 04, 2010, 07:38:46 pm
Teaser trailer is teaser trailer, nothing of substance, and I think it's the substance we are interested in...
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Badger on February 04, 2010, 07:42:46 pm
I'm still optimistic. It'll be better than Fallout 3, but perhaps no Van Buren.

I'm not going to dismiss it, though. Just because I've had steak, doesn't mean I'm going to turn down a hamburger.

I just watched it. I'm happy they've moved on with the colour scheme. BLUE! REMEMBER BLUE? REMEMBER ORANGE AND RED? I missed those guys.

I think it'll be good. I'm happy the NCR are there - that puts the whole thing in the context of the shady and aggressive expansion NCR was going to embark on in Van Buren. It won't be what VB was going to be, but I find political treachery where there are no good guys a lot more interesting than YOU MUST SAVE WASTELAND WITH LIAM NEESON AND YOUR BEST PALS THE BOS.

I'm expecting a lot more moral ambiguity and people not being what they appear.

The NCR presence isn't exactly like the BOS moving from coast to coast. The length of the Fallout 1/2 worldmap stretches from southern Oregon to Bakersfield, I'm pretty sure that's shorter than the distance from the Boneyard (Los Angeles) to Vegas. Van Buren was all about expanding into Utah. If we can make it from California to Denver, we can make it to Vegas.

(http://www.world-guides.com/images/las_vegas/map1_las_vegas.jpg)

I just hope you're not another fucking Vault Dweller. Why can't I just be a scummy Vegas wastelander?

Goddamn it, now I'm excited. I hate you guys.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: baaelSiljan on February 04, 2010, 08:29:23 pm
You know, I'm talking about trailer, not game, but trailer can tell us much about game. Look at gameplay, scenario, cuts movies, idea and scenery from original series. Fallout was very very original black humor comedy placed in retro 50's postapocalyptical future. And it was based on classic novels, movies and sketches.

Why to hell such things like this (FO3 and perhaps upcoming New Vegas) are called Fallout? First it is not black humor comedy - this argument is good enough to remove Fallout brand from this games, second it has almost nothing from crazy retro 50's - much more it looks like strict copying characters and design from old productions, but not idea - FO 1/2 was using idea, not so much copying content (they do their own design). Third thing is that people who create FO3 and as I see New Vegas dont feel and dont know what it means "postindustrial wastelands", whole scenery looks like bit thrashcan after explosion. Look at scenery in FO 1/2, it is full of junk covered by dust, sand and mud, cities looks like found empty by some wanderers and adopted to life. In FO3 it looks like people want to live in thrash and dont care about anything else.

It is same comparision like Monthy Python to new stupid teen comedies - both are stupid and without sense sometimes, but it is another level of humor. They do game with Fallout brand, but they dont understand what Fallout is.

Does combat armor look like this?
(http://www.marnscda.com/downloads/NerdsGM/wallpaper_killzone_06_1024.jpg)

My point is, they have too much marketing, but not enough ideas and heart in this productions. I can bet FO4 will look like Army of two + Modern Warfare + (4 skills + 6 perks (1kk levels for each))

*two last options are only to use shortcut RPG in game title

PS. i enjoyed playing FO3 and perhaps will enjoy New Vegas, but there was trick to do that - I removed string "Fallout" from logos and cover.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Karko on February 04, 2010, 09:00:21 pm

I see New Vegas dont feel and dont know what it means "postindustrial wastelands", whole scenery looks like bit thrashcan after explosion. Look at scenery in FO 1/2, it is full of junk covered by dust, sand and mud, cities looks like found empty by some wanderers and adopted to life. In FO3 it looks like people want to live in thrash and dont care about anything else.


Does combat armor look like this?
(http://www.marnscda.com/downloads/NerdsGM/wallpaper_killzone_06_1024.jpg)



Well said there.


Personally, I think the trailer doesnt reveal jackshit about the game, but judging from the screenshots in the webpage. It looks exactly like FO3, as if this was an expansion pack to Bethesda's shit.
And 1st person view is simply, meh... I wont even bother testing this game when its out.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Lexx on February 04, 2010, 11:33:59 pm
I trust in Sawyer. The story - really - CANT be bad.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Roachor on February 05, 2010, 02:15:44 am
Holy shit that does look like killzone. The whole vegas concept is pretty ridiculous too, las vegas was built in a desert, without pumping stations it would be gone in about a decade. As much as fallout 3 pissed me off with its shitty writing and insane amounts of bugs its still better than most console games and I really hope obsidian mountain will do a better job. It'll never be what we want because we came from a generation of pc games where developers weren't afraid of complexity, companies these days just want a product that will appeal to the lowest common denominator. The combat system was really shit in fallout 3 and they screwed it up even worse trying to fix it in the expansions. Shirtless hill billy can take more damage than a guy in power armour and does 4 times more damage than you do with the same gun? Yeah that makes sense.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: runboy93 on February 05, 2010, 08:18:20 am
I don't like it.

Original Fallout style is best.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Alvarez on February 05, 2010, 05:18:57 pm

PS. i enjoyed playing FO3 and perhaps will enjoy New Vegas, but there was trick to do that - I removed string "Fallout" from logos and cover.

Ditto. I liked Capital Wasteland too, a nice FPS spinoff.

Also, i'm relieved that they left Colorado alone. There's still hope for VanBuren.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Badger on February 05, 2010, 05:38:55 pm
Yeah, the vanilla combat bugged the shit out of me. Taking down the Enclave with your hunting rifle was just plain silly.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Aricvomit on February 05, 2010, 11:49:47 pm
wow, lemme put on my fire suit for the impending flame. anyways, i think the trailer looked great.
 i think the problem with people saying its not fallout its not fallout is realizing that theres an entire world of untapped and "DIFFERENT" potential, not everything in the world is going to be the same.
you gotta figure Fallout 1 an 2 both took place on the west coast so your going to have to realize some things may just be specific to that area. its like looking at the difference in architecture throughout the untied states. i lived in new orleans and illinois and its drastically different.
 what about the rest of the world? thats the thing, the world as a whole is only really touched upon breifly in the fallout games, the most we hear about the world in this situation is stuff about canada and china. i mean if you figure theres an entire world out there whats to say some places wont be different.
I guess people are just gonna have to wait and see but the hope is there, they are bringin it back to the west and in turn fixing alot of the issues people had with 3 about stuff like jet and crap that shouldnt really matter to anyone.
remember this simple fact, the only reason fallout has endured and grew to where it is now is because of interplays initial screw ups and not bringing out van buren.
what if, mind you just what if van buren sucked ass. if van buren had come out and bombed most people would have forsaken the fallout franchise and written off future games,
stagnation is the worst thing that can happen to a game, look at tomb raider, critically acclaimed for a few games and then pure crap for the rest.. thing is the game formula didnt change, we consumers did and we got tired of the same old thing. so FTW lets see some new ideas and content breathe life into an old franchise.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: baaelSiljan on February 06, 2010, 01:49:36 am
I'm not talking that it will be bad game, I'talking that main point of Fallout is it idea, humor and atmosphere. Something what was lost in FO3 - not beacause of it first person, graphic or place, but because story, freedom and humor. Yes, this trailer isn't bad (if You really can say anything about this short movie) but where to hell is Fallout here? In Poland we speak "jedna jaskółka wiosny nie czyni" - "one swallow doesn't make a spring" - and only one in this trailer what has something connected to Fallout is NCR flag.

First time I played Fallout was some demo from games magazine, I didn't like this game, later I've seen when my friend was playing, so I bought it to try... after 2 months of vacation (every day of playing FO) and some time when I've heard about FO2 I was first in shop to buy it. And this was magic - i totally fall in love with this game, I then was about 17 year old. I waited for Fallout 3 for a long time, and when I saw Van Buren I tought it was some kind of joke. I really think that Van Burean is not even close to Fallout, but I hoped Troika will make good successor, and what I have seen in their tech demo was what I was waiting for. But way Bethesda choose (and dont tell me that Obsidian do something else, cause I'm sure Bethesda PR people and directors will influence in every single detail of this game and make it as much similar to FO3 as they can) is in my opion way of creating totally different game, only branded Fallout because of its value. Really it is not even close to RPG, and it is cutted to minimum because of "we consumers did and we got tired of the same old thing" and "we consumers really dont like to think, make arrows how we have to play" and "ooo here is too much text must i read it all" and "omg u n00b stfu i kill u" and "omg this needs more keys than game pad have!" and "omfg this is too hard" and "lets make some game who is famous and earn some $, than lets make some expansions from stuff we already have and earn some $, if we buy some well known brand with big enough world we dont have to think about it, it will sell itself, everybody will buy it because of name", and what is most painfull for me personally "what to hell is monthy python, and why do I have to read
any books (A Canticle for Leibowitz for example) to understand what is Cafe of the Broken Dreams or Maltese Falcon?"

You know, greatest thing in whole Fallout is for me that it takes a lot of good things from good and classic masterpieces, this make it very unique. also it is way old games was made, before marketing guys get it in their dirty hands and low profile thinking.

oh shit, i have a flameboy mood today :) no offence


BTW. i have same feeling about FO3 when there was a news that Bethesda will made it.. and i wasn't wrong.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Roachor on February 06, 2010, 02:27:49 am
Although to be honest I think we remember fallout through rose tinted goggles. There wasn't really that much dialogue, the combat system is half done and pretty simplistic and shit is pretty ugly.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Badger on February 06, 2010, 02:46:14 am
Although to be honest I think we remember fallout through rose tinted goggles. There wasn't really that much dialogue, the combat system is half done and pretty simplistic and shit is pretty ugly.

Yeah, some of the dialogue, particularly in F1 is pretty poor.

You think you can come here without challenge?
This, the home of your deadliest enemies? We will
see you dead. I will personally tear your heart
out of your chest and eat it before my proud
warriors
- Garl

I represent a threat you don't even understand. Do you really
 want to risk our wrath
- The Vault Dweller

Oh Garl. You such a flat character. It reads more like generic medieval RPG dialogue than grungy badasses from the future.

And yeah, the combat past a certain level is just shooting the eyes the eyes the eyes. Hey, that'd kind of be like FOnline now, wouldn't it?
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Lexx on February 06, 2010, 02:51:20 am
The dialog-uber-ness from Fallout 1 and 2 is the way you can do shit. You have more than one way to get something done and this is the greatness in that many other games fail.

Problem is that many people fail for "the real thing". As example, some say that Fallout is 2D graphic and everything else is shit, etc.. but it's just wrong and stupid.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: hatedbutrespected on February 06, 2010, 02:25:55 pm
I do not know why u people are hating on f3 so much, yes it was short , yes the story lacked some f1 and f2 story's, and yes Bethesda gave 2 % to f3  unlike oblivion which they gave 98% of them selfs and time, But still we have a chance to play our favorite game in the future, maybe our kids too. I was so happy when it came out, i thought the story was good,the graphics the world was shit, no random encounters, too easy or too hard, but it was worth dipping in the environment and tasting some f3 in a beautifull  3d world.   

So please stop hating on the game, if u hated it so much then why are u talking about it?

of course that they cannot make any 2d games anymore ..... no 1 would play them except  maybe 10000 of us.... if even that much, still not enough.

so it think its a good thing there making a new one.... hopefully by then ill have a good pc to run it :P
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Surf on February 06, 2010, 02:29:53 pm
Beautiful? The graphics in FO3 were ridicolous and looked like shit.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: hatedbutrespected on February 06, 2010, 02:55:03 pm
Beautiful? The graphics in FO3 were ridicolous and looked like shit.
\

HAAHHAA are u fuckin serious bro, i mean im not no high tech guy i rather depend and like old games till 2003 .... but if ur saying graphics and envirment were shit what world do u  live in? what do u think about lets say oblivion? same engine  what kind of game od u play maybe on pc it was shit but ps3 and xbox 360 was good for me, i dont know what kind of pc do u have hahaha or a ps 6 hahahaahahah
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Surf on February 06, 2010, 03:01:08 pm
Oblivion was not that beautiful too. Just filled with "teh bloom" and shiny things everywhere.
Everything that was in FO3 was just brown, everything. Than the ridicolous animations of the characters, the low poly textures etc. etc. Also, it seems that shadows were also bombed away bye the nukes in the capital wasteland. There aren't any shadows in the game (except those from the PC).
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: hatedbutrespected on February 06, 2010, 03:45:51 pm
Oblivion was not that beautiful too. Just filled with "teh bloom" and shiny things everywhere.
Everything that was in FO3 was just brown, everything. Than the ridicolous animations of the characters, the low poly textures etc. etc. Also, it seems that shadows were also bombed away bye the nukes in the capital wasteland. There aren't any shadows in the game (except those from the PC).

 Yea you are right about that, but maybe im just used to older graphics since i have a shit computer. every time i play newer game i wish they have shitty graphics so i can play it.... lol
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Reconite on February 06, 2010, 04:18:51 pm
Beautiful? The graphics in FO3 were ridicolous and looked like shit.
Yeah, it's all just smudgy textures and misplaced lighting.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: baaelSiljan on February 06, 2010, 04:19:39 pm
once upon the time, games were made with heart, they were hard, have great stories and atmosphere, but graphics wasn't so important...

now games look increadible, they are beautifull, sometimes it looks like real world, or even better, but there's lack of story in that and dump duplicating ideas. FO3 is very typical example of this.

hundreds of playing hours, but nothing special in gfx (and this games are still playable! I've spent 2 weeks on deuteros in december):

(http://b-em.bbcmicro.com/arculator/syndicate.gif)(http://opcg.net/gry/Sss/sim_city/screeny/screen_nr_1_duzy/screen_nr_1_duzy.jpg)(http://www.bd-fans.com/Images/Boulder_Dash_%28Allan_Tengg%29_big.png)(http://www.binaryspacegames.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/deuteros2.gif)

and games IMO for max few days (then be boring or ended):

(http://games.softpedia.com/screenshots/Batman-Arkham-Asylum_1.jpg)(http://www.gram.pl/upl/news/20080805154038.jpg)(http://www.purepc.pl/files/Image/news/2009/11/COD_MW2_1.jpg)(http://www.myps3.com.au/img/game/Red-Alert-3-1.jpg)

summary: looking good shit is better than candies looks like shit
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Reconite on February 06, 2010, 04:21:46 pm
FO3 is very typical example of this.
IMO no, Fallout 3 copped out on both aspects. The gameplay, story, SPECIAL, combat and graphics all pretty much sucked ass. The only thing that made it so popular is that it was so completely dumbed down and kiddy, full of "Rock-It Launchers" and "Fatman" mini-nuke launchers that kids were all over it, and that it was designed for consoles and extremely over-hyped.

Crysis is 2007, look at that:
(http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/140/shots/crysis-4.jpg) (http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/140/shots/crysis-4.jpg)

The graphics in Fallout 3 are pretty shit for a Q3 2008 game.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: hatedbutrespected on February 06, 2010, 04:25:45 pm
yea execpt cryisis was being made for at least couple of years... and its a fps  hard ot combine a fps/rpg with those kind of graphics maybe stalker made it .... but the gameplaY IS pretty shitty
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Lexx on February 06, 2010, 04:52:00 pm
New New Vegas info sounds great.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: baaelSiljan on February 06, 2010, 04:59:54 pm
where You have found any more info? bethblog is quite and only saying "soon more info"
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Reconite on February 06, 2010, 05:01:15 pm
New New Vegas info sounds great.
Agreed, but I'm still a bit sceptical on Area 51.

I'm glad for "hardcore mode", groin shots, geckos, smarter Super Mutants, Hoover Dam, Caesar's Legion vs NCR though.

@baaelSiljan: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Ausir/Rumor:_First_New_Vegas_news_from_magazines_emerge
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Badger on February 06, 2010, 05:03:07 pm
Quote
There is an optional hardcore mode, the character needs to drink water, ammo has weight, healing isn't instant etc.

Normal mode is more similar to Fallout 3 gameplay.

The storyline is focused on the New California Republic vs. Caesar's Legion (slavers from the east) vs. New Vegas residents.

You are not a vault dweller but are given a Pip-Boy by someone who is one.

There is a screenshot of a vault suit as well.

There is an assault rifle looking like the M4, as well as a new big gun with a backpack, held like a minigun.

There are special moves for melee weapons in VATS - specifically a move for a golf club called "Fore" which seems to be a groin shot.

The Hoover Dam is in the game and is supplying electricity to the city.

There is a quest to rescue a ghoul from some super mutants. The ghoul can then become your companion

The Geckos are back.

There are both dumb and intelligent super mutants, including the elite Nightkin. On at least one occasion you can convince them to fight amongst themselves.

Some super mutants look similar to the ones in Fallout 3, while others are new. There is e.g. a female super mutant with a 1950s hairstyle who apparently is one of their leaders.

Screenshots include a guy with a beard and straw hat, a ghoul and an NCR Ranger.

The only picture of New Vegas itself is concept art and not a screenshot.

Some location screenshots include a huge model dinosaur advertising a hotel, some satellite dishes, an array of solar panels

A character generation shot showing a "vigour machine" instead of the skill book

NCR base is the McCarran Airport, Caesar's Legion is based in the Vegas Strip, while super mutants are based in a place called Black Mountain.

There is also a town called Fremont and another called Primm. A topless reuve is mentioned as being in the latter. Area 51 also appears.

NCR Ranger armor is similar to a brown combat armor with sleeves, there are concept arts of a Ranger.

Skils have a bigger effect on conversation choices. E.g. someone with a high Explosives skill may be able to have a coversation about explosives where appropriate.

There is a Reputation system in addition to Karma.

First-person action RPG with the same engine as Fallout 3.

Set in the Mojave wastelands. Vegas didn't get many nukes. More intact buildings, as well as desert vegetation. Vegas itself is mostly intact.

You don't play a Vault Dweller (or descendant of one) but a courier, left for dead and saved by a friendly robot.

Vegas itself is mostly intact

Both karma and reputation are tracked. If I'm reading it right there's separate reputations for each of the settlements, as in 1 and 2.

All dialogue options are shown to all players, regardless of whether you have the stats to succeed or not, though there's no punishment for failure.

Bartering is not just lower prices but negotiating for better rewards.

Weapons also now have knock-back upon death, with shotguns sending people flying.

Followers can be managed through a context-sensitive menu, with orders like "follow", "stay" or "attack".

Goddamn it I'm getting excited.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: hatedbutrespected on February 06, 2010, 05:06:40 pm
New New Vegas info sounds great.


yea first every one talking smack now every one is for the game ahahah .,.... cant wait till it gets out sounds amazing hopefully they will take more time on the game length  then on original  f3
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: baaelSiljan on February 06, 2010, 05:07:54 pm
agree it looks good, hope it will be like that (FO3 was also "looking good")

yea first every one talking smack now every one is for the game ahahah

maybe beacause we are not kids who shouting like that (maybe only in flameboy berseker mode :P).
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Yamcha on February 06, 2010, 05:32:59 pm
It'll be better then F3 because J.E. Sawyer is onboard now!

give it another chance
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Badger on February 06, 2010, 05:37:33 pm
I just want pump action shotguns. Using the same damn animations as the assault rifle stuck out as just plain lazy.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Surf on February 06, 2010, 05:39:49 pm
Yeah, the shotgun in FO3 was shit.
I hope they have more realistic weapon sounds in..
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Lexx on February 06, 2010, 05:41:03 pm

yea first every one talking smack now every one is for the game ahahah .,.... cant wait till it gets out sounds amazing hopefully they will take more time on the game length  then on original  f3

I was always for the game, because of one simple reason: Obsidian can't make a more bad Fallout than Bethesda. It's just impossible.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Badger on February 06, 2010, 05:45:10 pm
You don't play a Vault Dweller (or descendant of one) but a courier, left for dead and saved by a friendly robot.

For some reason I didn't notice this the first time around. This is a glorious day, gentlemen. We are no longer MYSTICAL VAULT DWELLERS. We are now regular joes with crappy jobs who've actually lived in the wasteland. Don't ask me why, this is a lot more appealing.

Maybe, if we get really, really lucky, the quest won't be to save the world.

Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: baaelSiljan on February 06, 2010, 05:47:44 pm
I was always for the game, because of one simple reason: Obsidian can't make a more bad Fallout than Bethesda. It's just impossible.

when martketing boys are in town, everything is possible :) i know it cause i work in such section of similar working company (i guess) for some time.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Roachor on February 06, 2010, 06:13:30 pm
Oblivion was not that beautiful too. Just filled with "teh bloom" and shiny things everywhere.
Everything that was in FO3 was just brown, everything. Than the ridicolous animations of the characters, the low poly textures etc. etc. Also, it seems that shadows were also bombed away bye the nukes in the capital wasteland. There aren't any shadows in the game (except those from the PC).

Yeah I agree fallout was ugly because of the art direction. They somehow missed that there was green plants in fallout 1/2. It was one big greyish brown eyesore.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: TommyTheGun on February 06, 2010, 06:58:46 pm
You don't play a Vault Dweller (or descendant of one) but a courier, left for dead and saved by a friendly robot.

For some reason I didn't notice this the first time around. This is a glorious day, gentlemen. We are no longer MYSTICAL VAULT DWELLERS. We are now regular joes with crappy jobs who've actually lived in the wasteland. Don't ask me why, this is a lot more appealing.

Maybe, if we get really, really lucky, the quest won't be to save the world.



No more bluesuit? I bet you guys gonna miss it sooner or later ;)

Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Surf on February 06, 2010, 07:01:29 pm
I don't think so.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Roachor on February 06, 2010, 07:08:53 pm
Seriously? Female super mutants? They don't have a gender. They even went out of their way to explain this in both tactics and fo3.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Badger on February 06, 2010, 07:11:51 pm
Seriously? Female super mutants? They don't have a gender. They even went out of their way to explain this in both tactics and fo3.

I remember it being that they didn't have any distinct sex characteristics. I mean, there was the whole 'Super mutants are infertile' thing. Ones like Marcus and the Lieutenant were obviously men, for example. I think it's just a cop out so we don't have giant she-hulks walking around.

Heh, same with ghouls. I never liked the emergence of female ghouls, in my head they were always just a bunch of crotchety, wheezy old dudes.

Personally, though, I wouldn't be surprised if the 'female' was a totally cracked in the head male.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Surf on February 06, 2010, 07:17:33 pm
There are male and female mutants. They just look equal. There were female mutants in mariposa too.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Roachor on February 06, 2010, 07:27:55 pm
Ghouls make sense, its just radiation poisoning its not gender related. The FEV virus changes your physiology and I'm assuming your genitals are crushed under all the added muscle, that much testosterone everyone would sound like a dude.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Surf on February 06, 2010, 07:32:51 pm
Yep, you could read that in a holo disc somewhere or in a dialog, don't know it exactly.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: TommyTheGun on February 06, 2010, 08:43:42 pm
Ghouls make sense, its just radiation poisoning its not gender related. The FEV virus changes your physiology and I'm assuming your genitals are crushed under all the added muscle, that much testosterone everyone would sound like a dude.

How do you know how that female mutie sounds? As written before - it may be just some F up Mutie.

IMO it can be a mutant that remembers that it used to be a woman. :)
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Mr. White on February 06, 2010, 08:49:05 pm
Why do you guys whine over it not being like Fallout and Fallout 2? That's like being pissed that every Grand Theft Auto is different.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: gordulan on February 06, 2010, 09:07:45 pm
maybe female super mutants are the men & women which had been droppep into trhe experimental fev vat with oestrogen
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: TommyTheGun on February 06, 2010, 09:31:09 pm
Why do you guys whine over it not being like Fallout and Fallout 2? That's like being pissed that every Grand Theft Auto is different.

Cause GTA was not raped. Fallout was.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Lexx on February 06, 2010, 09:37:42 pm
Why do you guys whine over it not being like Fallout and Fallout 2? That's like being pissed that every Grand Theft Auto is different.

This is like ignoring the past 4 years.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Badger on February 06, 2010, 09:40:07 pm
You're a courier, wounded and left for dead in a shallow grave. A friendly robot, Victor, digs you out, and his doctor owner Mitchell patches you up. You take a "vigour test", which is some sort of electric parlour game. This decides who you are and sets up SPECIAL. You can also take some Rorschach tests, but the mag says this is for fun. The Doc then gives you a Pipboy as he was once a Vault dweller.

Given that it's Caeser's versus Vegas Citizens versus NCR, I'm hoping the doctor has a bias towards one (probably the NCR, them and vault dwellers probably have the most in common) and saved you with the intent of making you an NCR agent. Then, GASP, you find out the NCR are as ruthless and corrupt as everyone else and the man who saved your life only did so because he knew you'd owe him.


I'm also hoping the BOS isn't ingame at all. I'm sick of them.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Surf on February 06, 2010, 09:43:06 pm
I'm actually really hyped about that since those infos came out.
I know that it's not good because one only can become disapointed, but hell, reading the first signs of the plot, I came.
The only thing that is bugging me, is this crappy engine the game is running on.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: baaelSiljan on February 06, 2010, 09:47:01 pm
You're a courier, wounded and left for dead in a shallow grave. A friendly robot, Victor, digs you out, and his doctor owner Mitchell patches you up. You take a "vigour test", which is some sort of electric parlour game. This decides who you are and sets up SPECIAL. You can also take some Rorschach tests, but the mag says this is for fun. The Doc then gives you a Pipboy as he was once a Vault dweller.
(...)

and then You will be armed and start shooting to everyone in your way, on checkpoints You will play RPG in cut scenes, world is open so You can see it from Your closed non-linear road, road is non-linear cause You have to back sometimes, and walk in circle in opposition to linear straight one (Giana sisters?)

(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/4/4a/Fallout_NV_logo.png)
Fallout: New Vegas (from marketing point of view)

*results may vary

my own black humor
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Lexx on February 06, 2010, 10:12:37 pm
Doesn't matter much to me. Sawyers stuff for Van Buren was and is great.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: baaelSiljan on February 06, 2010, 10:14:13 pm
I'm not talking that he didn't :) but for now we are unable to say if he make something good for this game :P

i'm in sceptic mood now  ;)

wait a moment: You take a "vigour test", which is some sort of electric parlour game. This decides who you are and sets up SPECIAL. what?! so I can't in fact choose who I want to be and how I want to pass this game?!
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Lexx on February 06, 2010, 10:49:07 pm
You will most probably set your own SPECIAL stats, just like in Fallout 3. It's just a silly introducing. Bethesda keeps up that stuff since... ever.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Badger on February 06, 2010, 11:39:02 pm
You will most probably set your own SPECIAL stats, just like in Fallout 3. It's just a silly introducing. Bethesda keeps up that stuff since... ever.

Was there any part of your Vegas rescue you would like to change?
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Roachor on February 06, 2010, 11:42:22 pm
Was there any part of your Vegas rescue you would like to change?

Yes, I want to be saved by a gang of naked females bent on having the largest breasts in videogames.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Surf on February 06, 2010, 11:47:08 pm
Screenshots... :)

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/2066/77205074.jpg
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Badger on February 06, 2010, 11:52:19 pm
Screenshots... :)

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/2066/77205074.jpg

This is going to make me sound such a dick, but looking at the screenshots I suddenly felt a wave of 'coming back to reality'. It was the old rusty car without wheels that did it.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Surf on February 06, 2010, 11:54:19 pm
Hehe, yeah, it's like you're being dragged into the cold dark void of disappointment... :D
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Badger on February 06, 2010, 11:58:33 pm
Hehe, yeah, it's like you're being dragged into the cold dark void of disappointment... :D

Seriously! All that hope is kind of being pushed back down. I don't know. I'm just halfway through the article. Maybe because the magazine knows its audience, and re-WAIT A MINUTE POWDER GANGS. Oh god the hope is back.

One thing I'm actually hoping for is quality voice acting with a much wider cast. It's like every single actor only knew how to do one voice, and it was the voice they did for Oblivion. Nobody sounded grungy or manly or pissed off. I remember the junkie from Rivet City sounded the most clean cut and businesslike addict I have ever met.

Edit: Damn it, I'm optimistic again after reading it. Every situation seems to have options for characters of different skills.

And hell, if the super mutants can run a radio station, I think they'll be a pretty interesting group to deal with.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Surf on February 07, 2010, 12:01:26 am
The german VO was also shit.
What I like in this article - places one could actually consider settlements - hell, even cities! This NCR base at the mountains looks great too.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Reconite on February 07, 2010, 12:06:37 am
Edit: Damn it, I'm optimistic again after reading it. Every situation seems to have options for characters of different skills.
I remember Fallout 1/2 devs saying this is what they wanted to do in Fallout 1/2 but would be too much work, and that they wanted to actually accomplish this in Van Buren.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Surf on February 07, 2010, 12:16:01 am
Even moar!


http://www.abload.de/img/fnv3zrc6.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/fnv2bol4.jpg

Just want to annoy fella Badger a bit. :D
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Badger on February 07, 2010, 12:23:18 am
"If you ever visit New Vegas", interrupts Ringo, "look me up at the Crimson Caravan."

AHHH. YOU PEOPLE ARE MAKING ME DREAM AGAIN.

"Nightkin - elite, if schizophrenic commandos equipped with cloaking devices"

Even this makes me excited. In Van Buren there was a whole thing about extended use of stealth boys causing schizophrenia. BOS splinter groups who left after losing their grip on reality, Mormon prophets, all kinds of things. If you were a doctor character, you'd be able to diagnose them. Goddamn. I hope that comes up in this game.

New Vegas has a sense of humour the original lacked. Also a sense of style, and a feel for the Fallout universe that you can only get from the team that created it.

It is like Christmas. My biggest complaint with Fallout 3 was the writing, and the rest of my complaints are probably going to be dealt with be Sawyer's hardcore mode. I can't wait.
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: baaelSiljan on February 07, 2010, 01:02:00 am
I dont know what to think, I have to wait for final version, in some places it looks great, but in other ones it looks like a shit I was talking about before. At least I'm sure this is all marketing blablablabla having not much connection with reality.

But PC-centric developers from interplay (he meant bad boys in first article) makes me feel funny. In 1996/97 they should make games for Xbox! Yeah, stupid assholes :/

I'm sure this is like always "tell something nice about us and game so we show You some demo and You will be first"...
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Reconite on February 07, 2010, 01:10:57 am
Maybe thread should be renamed "New Vegas: Not as shit as I thought at first".
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: Surf on February 07, 2010, 01:12:00 am
You first have to convince Baael that it's not total shit.  ;D
Title: Re: New Vegas: IMHO shit
Post by: baaelSiljan on February 07, 2010, 02:38:24 am
ok, maybe I was wrong :) we will see it in future
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Izual on February 07, 2010, 11:05:07 am
Looks like Far Cry : Africa...
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Archvile on February 07, 2010, 01:40:55 pm
Quote
NORMAL: Ammunition is unlimited.
HARDCORE: Ammunition has weight, limiting your supply.

Very hardcore indeed.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Badger on February 07, 2010, 02:11:14 pm
I couldn't help but laugh at the differences between normal and hardcore mode. I also resent the claim that only 'Fallout's most obsessive fans' would want more challenging gameplay.

But hey, J.E. Sawyer remarked that it's the only way he wants to play his Fallout game. So I'm expecting it to be fairly well balanced and thought through.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Lexx on February 07, 2010, 02:13:37 pm
I will never play out of hardcore mode.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Reconite on February 07, 2010, 05:16:22 pm
I will never play out of hardcore mode.
That's what I thought as soon as I saw it, and I'll do just that.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on February 07, 2010, 07:14:58 pm
I like a challenge and ammo weight is closer to the original than carrying an entire armoury's worth of shit with you. Anything to balance out the infantilization of everything for console gamers, fallout 3 posed no real challenges.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: TommyTheGun on February 07, 2010, 11:22:57 pm
Wasn't shooting everyone's heads off challanging?

I think that they should also modify combat system in "hardcore" mode, since it was way to easy to kill stuff and required no tactics at all. The game in which you have to drink water and cannot carry unlimited amount of ammo, but still can kill stuff with shitty gun without any problem still isn't what I would call "playable".
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on February 07, 2010, 11:29:47 pm
I'm guessing you either didn't play it on hard or never touched the expansions. Also if you ever played f2 you become pretty godlike 1 hit killing everything.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: TommyTheGun on February 07, 2010, 11:44:42 pm
Expansions are totally different thing. Also - you have to pay additional money for those. I don't really want to lie to you - I don't remember what difficulty level i played on, but I'm guessing that I would just have to handle my pad better. There was not much of a tactics in every-few-seconds-VATS using or just running like crazy and shooting some heads off. Also - the amount of stimpaks and other kinky stuff in my backpack would suggest, that even hard (if it wasnt hard) lvl wouldnt be that scary. All of that when I played F3 first time (and last).

And yeah - I wont tell you how was it precisely when i played F2 for the first time, but from what i remember, killing Metzger was a challange for the first time. Its obvious thats most of people here can own F2 with their eyes closed, but since we all finished that game dozen^ times, its not really a good point ;)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on February 08, 2010, 05:13:26 am
They screwed it up with the expansions. Because the main game was too easy they made enemies ignore your armour class and have so much health it takes 5 rockets to dent a guys hp. Unarmed is the easiest because you can just chain stun everything.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: zubrowka on February 08, 2010, 11:52:42 am
fonline > fallout 3
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Alvarez on February 08, 2010, 10:43:06 pm
fonline > fallout 3

It's obvious.

But can you say it about New Vegas? I'm really intrigued now.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on February 09, 2010, 12:42:56 am
I wouldn't go that far, fallout 3 had a  on of problems but nowhere near as much as fonline. To be honest I'd be surprised if this ever amounted to anything based on the retarded ideas that have been implemented so far.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Reconite on February 09, 2010, 01:02:22 am
I wouldn't go that far, fallout 3 had a  on of problems but nowhere near as much as fonline. To be honest I'd be surprised if this ever amounted to anything based on the retarded ideas that have been implemented so far.
...FOnline is better than Fallout 3 by far. The finished product will be even better. It's not even a contest.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on February 09, 2010, 01:07:40 am
...FOnline is better than Fallout 3 by far. The finished product will be even better. It's not even a contest.

Fonline is so far just a frankenstein of old games and bad ideas. I don't think the devs will remake all the game systems which is necessary if they want this to ever be more than a semi broken fan mod. Yes fallout 3 was a huge disappointment on many levels but at least it had new content and fun gameplay. Stripping fallout 2 of almost everything and then letting idiots run around in the mess isn't much of an accomplishment.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Badger on February 09, 2010, 01:55:32 am
Fonline is so far just a frankenstein of old games and bad ideas. I don't think the devs will remake all the game systems which is necessary if they want this to ever be more than a semi broken fan mod. Yes fallout 3 was a huge disappointment on many levels but at least it had new content and fun gameplay. Stripping fallout 2 of almost everything and then letting idiots run around in the mess isn't much of an accomplishment.

I will admit I wasn't expecting the devs to take the game in the direction it's gone, but it's their game. They're don't have to suit anyone's tastes but their own. A lot of good will come out of releasing the FOnline engine, though. I'd love to see a Fallout 2 coop mod. Hell, if the 2238 devs let other people use the English dialogue I can't see it being a project that'll take years. It may not be identical to the original, but playing a Fallout cooperatively has always been a dream of mine.

Edit: Does anyone know when the engine is getting released? I wonder if there's been any news about that.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Lexx on February 09, 2010, 02:00:22 am
Fallout 2 coop will never happen. Needs too much changes + all scripts and everything else has to be rewritten. Not really worth the amount of work.

As soon as the server files are open for public, we will see how many MMOs will appear which are better than 2238.

Btw. if someone doesn't like 2238... nobody is forced to play. You think it sucks? Fine, you don't have to play it. You think it has no future? Fine, you don't have to waste more time, just leave it. Dunno what's so hard about it.

Quote
I will admit I wasn't expecting the devs to take the game in the direction it's gone, but it's their game.

What was it before? You should know it as well. The original idea was "faction mod" and has become something bigger. Still it features what it was meaned for: Factions.

Quote
I wouldn't go that far, fallout 3 had a  on of problems but nowhere near as much as fonline.

You are right. Guess it's because we forgot our millions of dollars and 100 man strong and professional dev team in the kitchen. Oh well.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on February 09, 2010, 07:19:42 am
I didn't start the f3 comparison. I just think that just because you guys know how to make a game doesn't necessarily mean any of you know anything about what makes a game good and the decisions i've seen you guys make so far reinforce this. The reason I play is because it has potential, I'm just not optimistic. Also my laptop can't run anything else other than diablo 2 and dota.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Lexx on February 09, 2010, 09:53:55 am
You write as if we introduced big fat changes on the assembly line in the last time. Which is not true. If you are not optimistic 'n shit, why do you post here then all day long? Except demotivating, you are doing nothing that helps.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on February 10, 2010, 12:14:33 am
Nothing that helps? Most of my posts are in the suggestions forums and there are a lot. I agree you haven't made many changes but the ones you did were seriously counter productive and the ones you didn't make are necessary. I dreamed about a game like this since I was in highschool and it's depressing to see the direction you guys are taking it.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: TommyTheGun on February 10, 2010, 12:27:06 am
Stop with that Offtopic or I will ban both of you!
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Alvarez on February 10, 2010, 09:26:24 pm
So... I have witnessed that there will be Geckos and Vault 21 in the area.

(http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/6586/newvegas.jpg) (http://img63.imageshack.us/i/newvegas.jpg/)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Badger on February 10, 2010, 09:58:57 pm
So... I have witnessed that there will be Geckos and Vault 21 in the area.

If I can get through the entire game without seeing a vault jumpsuit I will be a happy man.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on February 11, 2010, 08:55:29 am
well, i will be glad just not to wear one, you can kill off any unwanted vault dwellers if you would feel like it  ;)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Lexx on February 11, 2010, 11:05:14 am
Not if they are invulnerable, like in Fallout 3.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Badger on February 11, 2010, 01:26:10 pm
I hope kids are just a forgettable part of town's population than a major plot point. Bad writing sounds even worse coming from the voice of ten year olds.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Ghosthack on February 11, 2010, 02:31:46 pm
I hope kids are just a forgettable part of town's population than a major plot point. Bad writing sounds even worse coming from the voice of ten year olds.

It's even worse when you can't kill those annoying bastards without modifying the game.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Reconite on February 11, 2010, 03:48:01 pm
I'd rather them not include kids at all if you can't kill 'em. I hated being bossed around in Little Lamplight by those little pricks.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on February 11, 2010, 04:00:16 pm
Yeah honestly, nothing more annoying than launching a rocket at mccready's(sp?) face and watching it go through him.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Badger on February 11, 2010, 04:02:03 pm
I'd rather them not include kids at all if you can't kill 'em. I hated being bossed around in Little Lamplight by those little pricks.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't want to kill them nor did I try. I don't consider child murder an integral part of Fallout. But it's just the fact that they're totally invincible no matter what that bugs me. I appreciate it's a major subject for censorship in games, but in that case just don't include them. In a game where murder is a viable solution to most problem it just feels weird being told THESE CHILDREN ARE PROTECTED BY INTERNATIONAL CENSORSHIP.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Mister Dank on February 11, 2010, 11:29:01 pm
I consider child murder an integral part of Fallout.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: TommyTheGun on February 11, 2010, 11:39:25 pm
"I consider child murder an integral part of Fallout." < Erm... I consider OPTION of child murdering an integral part of Fallout. But it mean i agree at some point ;)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on February 12, 2010, 07:28:00 am
It's all about being a child killing slaver.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on February 12, 2010, 09:52:39 am
sex, drugs and sniping children is what fallout's all about, the savin the world from destruction by massive forces of darkness is just a side quest.  8)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: zubrowka on February 12, 2010, 01:06:01 pm
you've got the point guys
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Dark Angel on February 13, 2010, 09:41:09 pm
I saw it. IT IS NOT OLD FALLOUT . New fallout should have That 3D building ... But they lose FABLE from F1 , F2.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: zubrowka on February 13, 2010, 09:42:18 pm
and to be honest, i don't want to see any 3d models in fonline...
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: baaelSiljan on February 15, 2010, 12:56:37 am
yeah, I see this professional Obsidian look on NV like "grenade machine gun" (WTF?!).

@zubrowka

why not? it looks quite nice in FOnline, but after all i'm working now in different city, so all models are on my personal PC in home, i can't wait to back here and end it :)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Reconite on February 15, 2010, 06:38:37 am
I saw it. IT IS NOT OLD FALLOUT.
Honest to god, it's a lot more Fallout than this (http://fodev.net/forum/index.php?topic=1773.0). Regardless of it using the Gamebryo engine in an FPS view, it's still under a lot of the original Fallout creators and is set closer to the wasteland of the first 2 games.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Alvarez on February 15, 2010, 04:59:59 pm
Honest to god, it's a lot more Fallout than this (http://fodev.net/forum/index.php?topic=1773.0). Regardless of it using the Gamebryo engine in an FPS view, it's still under a lot of the original Fallout creators and is set closer to the wasteland of the first 2 games.

I got your point about yesterday. Don't dwell on it.

What do you expect from the game, anyway?
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on February 15, 2010, 06:11:58 pm
I'm still pretty excited about new vegas.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Alvarez on February 15, 2010, 09:27:15 pm
So, i expect it to be as moddable as Capital Wasteland is.
With more script and less hardcode.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Reconite on February 15, 2010, 09:40:57 pm
What do you expect from the game, anyway?
A decent story, more balanced gameplay, good dialogue options, etc.

It will still be a lot more Fallout than Fallout 3, and much closer to Fallout and Fallout 2.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: deathmetal4u on February 22, 2010, 11:26:26 pm
hopefully they get a good storyline this time for the main quest and better side quests
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: avv on February 27, 2010, 01:50:45 pm
Hopefully they would fix the amassment of items. In all fallout games there was so much stuff and the player never had to worry about not being able to buy something, except in the beginning. The quest rewards were ridiculous: 200 caps for killing some slaver when you got 4x that from selling the loot from those slavers.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on February 27, 2010, 05:41:25 pm
the best was tenpenny tower. I looted it, triggered the ghoul invasion (restocks the whole place because its not the same map) looted it all again and then afterward when the ghouls took over I looted it a 3rd time. I was so balling ass rich.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: avv on February 27, 2010, 10:04:13 pm
the best was tenpenny tower. I looted it, triggered the ghoul invasion (restocks the whole place because its not the same map) looted it all again and then afterward when the ghouls took over I looted it a 3rd time. I was so balling ass rich.

Yeh that's a trick done by the book.

Just taking everything from everywhere and selling them to rivet city can make you infinitely rich. There's nothing but lack of time to prevent players from doing it. First I did it alone, then I took Jericho as a mule, then I shot Jericho and cheated my carryweight to 9999. It's hard to beleave that some gunsalesman is willing to trade useless crap for ammo when supplies are supposed to be scarce.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on March 02, 2010, 06:08:15 pm
let us get back on track of this topic guys, i was bored, surfen in the vault about new vegas, and guess what i found, yes, that's right, we are gonna have a pip-boy...
i mean what the hell, i had the thoughts on 3 separate modules for the menu system.
A med-boy for the medical systems
A pack-boy for the inventory
and a notebook (in paper) for the quests, news and shit like that...

But now we are gonna get a pip-fucking-boy 3k and a blasted vault suit...
Enjoy people.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Courier (http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Courier)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Badger on March 02, 2010, 07:34:20 pm
But now we are gonna get a pip-fucking-boy 3k and a blasted vault suit...

Dammit. I am hoping the clothes you start out wearing are just as good, and the vault suit is just fanservice, never to be seen again if you discard it.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on March 02, 2010, 08:14:55 pm
You get the pip boy from an old vault inhabitant, plus would you rather you just had no menu? The point of the pipboy was to give a reasonable way to have all your stats and info available incorporated into the game instead of the usual hud display.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on March 03, 2010, 08:22:59 am
as i said earlier, it would be far more wastelandy if they put it into three modules, not all heroes can be expected to own a pip-boy
A med-boy for the medical systems
A pack-boy for the inventory
and a notebook (in paper) for the quests, news and shit like that...
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on March 04, 2010, 12:16:43 am
as i said earlier, it would be far more wastelandy if they put it into three modules, not all heroes can be expected to own a pip-boy

why have a -boy anything? whatever happened to having a backpack.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on March 04, 2010, 06:32:19 pm
would be a kind of mess, rooting about it with about 20 or so assault rifles lying in there at any 1 time...
plus, wtf are the miniguns or laser gatlings gonna look like in there?
that is one thing that has really buggered me for a while now.
i have about 280 carry weight on fa3 right now though, triedit, and it wasn't that bad, maybe just a litte unfalloutlike, but not that bad, the pipboy really makes me want to chew off my arm at times, just because of the fact that 1 hand is always naked...
i mean, the glitched gary23 winterised combat armour looks really good, but the pipboy ruins 1 sleeve completely...
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Badger on March 04, 2010, 07:14:43 pm
i mean, the glitched gary23 winterised combat armour looks really good, but the pipboy ruins 1 sleeve completely...

Yeah, there's mods for that. Everything looks a lot better without that damn retarded glove and bare sleeve.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on March 04, 2010, 07:21:09 pm
ahum, ahum, i'm using the ps3 for it, got it at a bargain of 15£ for the GOTY edition for the ps3, and don't ask me where i got it since it was the only copy the store had left, the Pitt just had a raw fallouty feeling to it though, one of the best DLCs ever, the best being anchorage with the indestructible T51-b Power Armour waiting at the end.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on March 04, 2010, 07:27:39 pm
ahum, ahum, i'm using the ps3 for it, got it at a bargain of 15£ for the GOTY edition for the ps3, and don't ask me where i got it since it was the only copy the store had left, the Pitt just had a raw fallouty feeling to it though, one of the best DLCs ever, the best being anchorage with the indestructible T51-b Power Armour waiting at the end.

you've got to be joking, anchorage was by far the worst expansion. Sure the loot was good (PA sucks balls compared to stealth suit) but it turned fallout into a generic shooter which doesn't work very well since the combat is pretty shitty for a FPS. The boss was so damn buggy that 30 seconds into the fight your own troops open fire for no reason and the stealth armour pretty much broke the game. Plus it was even uglier than regular fallout 3.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on March 04, 2010, 07:37:09 pm
you know what, i never said that the gameplay was any good, the fav part is definetly the ability to get the indestructible items within the simulation out of it, and personally speaking, the "pre-war" weapons skins feel far more appeealing than the grimy "post-apo" styles on the guns, i never said that it was any good gameplay, i just said that i liked the loot given by the expansion, but by gameplay, the Pitt is most probably the very best one of the DLCs, although i wouldn't be caught carrying any armour found there except for maybe the tribal PA and the raider commando suit.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on March 04, 2010, 07:39:02 pm
I think the biggest disappointment was the mansion quest in lookout point, all that work for a shittier version of a useless gun with super rare ammo?
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on March 04, 2010, 07:46:13 pm
yeah, but still, it helped me load up on rad-banishing foodstuffs, and several free perks, now i don't step out of the home without 30 or so punga fruits with me, both healthy and nourishing. Kinda awkward finding a piece of my brain on the boat at the end of the thing though, and it kinda felt lifeless, with a nonexistent usage of my lady-killer abilities, it just felt like a run&gun thing that a mediocre modder could do disguised behing voice acting and properly textured items, made me go back there and mini-nuke the entire cathedral just because of the crap value of the thing...

p.s. will the refined fruits grow back after a while though, it's kinda used as my stimpacks now...
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: avv on March 05, 2010, 04:24:25 pm
The Pitt sucked because the baby was indestructible. Otherwise it was quite good.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on March 05, 2010, 04:50:58 pm
you sick bastard, what kind of person are you if yu want to explode a baby. ;)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on March 05, 2010, 06:39:28 pm
Lol I tried so hard to drop the baby in the pile of dead bodies in the sewer.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Alvarez on March 09, 2010, 05:46:02 pm
By the way, do OXM actually mean it SERIOUSLY or am i just missing the sarcasm?

Quote
"Clearly, you have a responsibility to push the series forward, but there's also nothing worse than a misguided attempt to differentiate a follow-up that only ruins what everyone loved about the original. Throw in a new developer - [Fallout] New Vegas is being developed by Obsidian rather than Bethesda's in-house team - and there is no doubt that a fair few Fallout fans will be more than a little concerned that this could be a recipe for nuclear disaster" - OXM UK, Fallout: New Vegas article, March 2010.

I believe, someone put wrong "fair few Fallout fans" instead of "fair few Fallout3: Capital Wasteland fans."
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on March 10, 2010, 07:29:42 am
Yeah what would black isle know about making a fallout game? ::)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on March 10, 2010, 10:17:35 am
exactly, they have absolutely no experience with making fallout games whatsoever  ::)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Scottz on March 11, 2010, 10:39:30 am
sniping children is what fallout's all about

Wrong! It's about hitting children to groin with a Super Sledgehammer.  ;)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on March 16, 2010, 06:23:10 am
I was so pissed off the first time I threw a grenade at a kid in f3.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on March 16, 2010, 01:35:48 pm
and the kids in little lamplight are such cocky assholes, i installed the childkiller mod just so i could massacre their smug little asses.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on March 19, 2010, 08:37:35 pm
That and I really wanted mcready's combat helm/jacket.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Badger on March 20, 2010, 08:37:35 pm
That and I really wanted mcready's combat helm/jacket.

Some of the kids actually had great clothes. McReady's gear and Lucas Simms' kid's police jacket were both awesome.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: AmneziaHaze on March 21, 2010, 06:30:55 am
this is not fallout. wake up.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on March 21, 2010, 06:08:15 pm
this is not fallout. wake up.
Wow great comment there buddy, you're right I'm just going to play fallout 2 and never play anything new because I loved a game when I was 14.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Badger on March 21, 2010, 07:35:47 pm
Wow great comment there buddy, you're right I'm just going to play fallout 2 and never play anything new because I loved a game when I was 14.

NOW YOU'RE CATCHING ON. Welcome to the Fallout fanbase.

Here's your junior membership card. That thing makes you immune to the irony of claiming you play a hardcore game when you have an undiscoverable base full of combat armour.

Welcome aboard!
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: AmneziaHaze on March 22, 2010, 09:24:36 am
Wow great comment there buddy, you're right I'm just going to play fallout 2 and never play anything new because I loved a game when I was 14.

damn, maybe im too old. I just dont have a time for new "games". i dont understand this kind of.. life.

fallout 3 and vegas is not real fallout. this is a other game from other developers. in my opinion - stupid violence shooter with no sense. you buy it, because this is product(with good promotion) for masses with great name of legendary game.
maybe im hipocrite, im not sure.  ;)

 
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on March 22, 2010, 04:11:26 pm
damn, maybe im too old. I just dont have a time for new "games". i dont understand this kind of.. life.

fallout 3 and vegas is not real fallout. this is a other game from other developers. in my opinion - stupid violence shooter with no sense. you buy it, because this is product(with good promotion) for masses with great name of legendary game.
maybe im hipocrite, im not sure.  ;)

 

Don't judge a game that doesn't exist yet, especially when you consider it's being made by the original fallout devs.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: X_Treme on April 07, 2010, 09:21:25 pm
You're wrong

in an interview is seen as "literally" Chris Avellone, licks his nuts to Bathesdashit.
I'm sure the new vegas is going to be a great game, but not a good fallout

think about it, because Chris Avellone is going on in the ass be a exblackisle, and only bother to keep working and earning money, logically, right?
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Lexx on April 07, 2010, 10:34:01 pm
Chris is working for Bethesda. It's obvious that he will never say anything bad about Bethesda.

I don't understand how people can ask Obsidian folks how they like Fallout 3 and Bethesda, if Obsidian gets the money from Bethesda... it's so fucking obvious that there will never be any bad answer from them. And if you still try to ask, here are some news once again: They will never ever say anything bad about Bethesda games. The highest of all things will be, that they don't answer the question at all.

The best thing you can do about it is to never ask them, what they think about what Fallout has become.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: X_Treme on April 07, 2010, 11:21:51 pm
Chris is working for Bethesda.

is my point lexx

for me, Chris is a god, cuz he is a creator of fallout bibles!!!

but, i think he is lying to himself
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Lexx on April 08, 2010, 12:15:45 pm
It doesn't matter for whom you work. It only matters that you get money for work.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on April 08, 2010, 01:32:28 pm
exactly, the world does not give a shit where the money's coming from, and besides, i liked fallout 3, it didn't feel like a fallout, but it was a good game, all in all
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on April 08, 2010, 06:42:27 pm
I just wish they had tested it as much as oblivion, it felt really unpolished and had a ton of bugs considering it was pretty much just a total conversion mod.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Aricvomit on April 08, 2010, 09:02:38 pm
yeah, well honestly bethesda must hate the ps3. i played through the ps3 version and there were way more bugs, no downloadable content for months after they were released for the pc and the xbox and it was the same way with oblivion, im tellin ya valve and bethesda suckle the teat of microsoft.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on April 08, 2010, 09:19:18 pm
PS3 always gets owned with dlc, one of the many reasons I prefer xbox.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Aricvomit on April 08, 2010, 09:20:24 pm
heheh that and the 80% breakdown rate?
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Quentin Lang on April 09, 2010, 11:12:13 pm
Oh, what a fucking myth, aricvomit. RRODs stopped since the Jasper came back in the 2008, and even on the Falcon they happened rarely. And if some happens these days on a fresh box, its usually the users fault by cooking the box in a closed shelf under a pillow with heater next to it.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on April 10, 2010, 01:57:35 am
I use all the systems at work and the reasons i hate ps3 are as follows:
-Tiny badly designed controller with shitty levers instead of triggers
- no anti aliasing so everything is jaggy as shit
- no ps3 only titles worth playing (unless you like watching 2 hour cut scenes)
- Heats up like a motherfucker, you culd toast bread over a ps3
- Has the same font as spider man movie on the case
- Garbage online service (you get what you pay for)
- 1x blue ray player means loading times are insanely long
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Aricvomit on April 12, 2010, 04:53:09 am
ANNNND heres where you favoritism comes into play, first off the ps3 controller is by far the best, better then the clunky picasso like xbox controller, the d-pad is 100% better then the xbox's as it is recessed and allows for accurate movement, playing street fighter 4 on an x-box is the equivalent to smashing my brains out with a hamme
 the online service is great for the ps3,, and heres another one, its free,
 i have a friend that fixes red rings and ill tell you this, when x-box fixes a system it doesent send out a new one, they just repair the old ones they have a kabillion of because so many go sent back, so they keep cycling faulty box's.
 i dont know a single person personally thats ever had a ps3 die on them, yet everyone i know that owns an x-box has gone through at least 2 box's, so explain to me how its bullshit especially when ive witnessed this crap personally.
 oh and as for the games the reign of x-box's exclusive titles is over, now everything gets released on both systems and the exclusives that do come out for the systems are generally flagship titles, honestly you guys can keep halo, that game makes me ill. id much rather play mgs 4 or little big planet, or killzone.
 but in short, x-box lost the media format war, blu ray discs are a much better medium and instead of getting a 4 disc game we get one, ill deal with slight load times seeing as the games are installed on the system nullifying most load times, oh wait didnt the x-box add that? yeah cause it was a good idea, do x-box's even have a functioning internet browser? or built in wifi?
 as for the systems being hot, well it doesent matter because they were designed to play hot, you wont leave star ocean 4 on for a few hours and come back to your living room on fire due to your xbox, (google that, it really happened) if microsoft werent such cheap bastards they could have avoided the whole issue in the first place, their marketing stand point was cut costs, ship product and hope  the early lead sustains us.

oh and as of august 2009 ign reports a 54.2 breakdown rate among its readers which is only a limited number, also the number has steadily increased if you do your research, heres a link to chew on. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/101/1014486p1.html
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: TuX on April 12, 2010, 11:08:30 am
Yeah.... X-box and PS3.... I don't have any of these. So about the original topic.

Lately I was thinking about what really was not right in Fo3 and I came to a conlusion that it was in the quests. Their number to be more precise. I mean apart from the main story we have like 15 sidequests? Maybe less, don't know exactly. There is very little to do beside wander through the capital wasteland and find all those undiscovered locations and bobleheads or some other shit you might want to collect. In Oblivion for example we had some factions you could join and each faction had about 10 or so quests. There were also quests given by npc. I got the impression that the main quest was just an add-on, cause I was much more interested in rising my ranks in the Thieves or Assasin's Guild. I really do hope that Obsidian will see to that problem.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on April 12, 2010, 12:01:21 pm
or you could finish all the quests and go on a global killing spree with the indestructible Op:anchorage weapons & armour all thanks to Senõr gary.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on April 12, 2010, 04:40:37 pm
lol at ps3 controller being better. They designed this
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/ca/20080407194701!PS3_boomerang_controller.jpg)

It got laughed out of existance annd they had to come up with something fast so they used the same crap controller they've been using since ps1 and tossed in sixaxis. It's tiny, not designed for human hand and is pretty much the worst thing you could ever play a shooter with. Who cares if it's better for street fighter? That game sucked in the 90's and it sucks now.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on April 12, 2010, 04:54:47 pm
well, it looks and feels sturdier than the wii remote, and besides, speaking of the wii, you could put an eye out with it
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Aricvomit on April 12, 2010, 06:27:16 pm
lol at ps3 controller being better. They designed this
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/ca/20080407194701!PS3_boomerang_controller.jpg)

It got laughed out of existance annd they had to come up with something fast so they used the same crap controller they've been using since ps1 and tossed in sixaxis. It's tiny, not designed for human hand and is pretty much the worst thing you could ever play a shooter with. Who cares if it's better for street fighter? That game sucked in the 90's and it sucks now.

its funny you use a concept image as your only argument and didnt dispute any of the other things i threw at you, i mean considering if this is your only argument its pretty stupid, honestly i dont like this controller, im glad they went back to the old one cause how can you improve upon perfection, and as for street fighter sucking, i guess its easy to say something sucks when your incapable of playing anything that requires reaction time when your functionally brain dead, right roachor?
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on April 12, 2010, 07:06:09 pm
I just don't like simplistic games, 2d sidescroll button mashers aren't my thing. If you're going to play a fighting game at least pick something with some meat to it like DOA. Also the ps3 controller is for people with shrunken baby hands, my fingers cramp up when I used it and the levers that swing down/inward instead of clicking in are terrible. Sony can't design for shit, just look at all their peripherals like the usb headset that comes with a stupid dock on a wire. Ps2 was the biggest piece of garbage ever made and PS3 is just a glorified bluray player. I'm not saying the xbox is perfect but I wouldn't play the PS3 if it was free.

Also the new metal gear is on xbox and you guys get DLC about 6 months after we do, if ever.
*Free online = shit online.
*Ps2 controller being perfection is laughable
*Fanboys love defending garbage they bought because they paid for it.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Surf on April 12, 2010, 07:09:51 pm
So... Wasn't this thread about FO:NV?  ::)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on April 12, 2010, 07:18:57 pm
So... Wasn't this thread about FO:NV?  ::)

It's "coming soon" apparently. I don't see how next season is soon but whatever.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Aricvomit on April 12, 2010, 07:34:11 pm
you must have retado super mutant hands, i have gangly alien hand myself so your hands must be out of control to think the controllers to small or youve been brainwashed by the evil empire, seriousely, the online is perfect, ive never had an issue and i dont understand how you would even be able to make that assumption since its apparent you dont have a ps3 and probably have never spent any time on one, i on the other hand have both systems and side by side the ps3 boasts more functionality with a higher degree of fine tuned precision. sorry bud but i really dont think the arguments you make are in the least bit valid, and seemed to be based more on opinion then fact, throw some statistics and facts at me and maybe ill think you have a valid point.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Alvarez on April 16, 2010, 04:25:03 pm
(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/1953/consoles.png)

Back to topic, gentlemen.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: bikkebakke on April 30, 2010, 08:12:44 pm
small info text (http://www.ps3bloggen.se/spel/ny-information-om-fallout-new-vegas), just skip the swedish text, there is nothing important there, the important stuff is in english.

there is some info at the wiki aswell: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas (http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas)

not much info :/ I'm surprised at the bad advertisement about the game, but I guess they will not start to advertise until there is a (few) month(s) before the game is released.

It seems they are to return a little bit to the old fallout stuff (nightkin supermutant/smart supermutants/harder gameplay with ammoweight etc etc), but its still f3 gameplay.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Surf on April 30, 2010, 08:16:05 pm
It's bethesdas marketing strategy not to show anything else then a few screenshots and a trailer till the game comes out.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on April 30, 2010, 08:48:46 pm
I just hope they take the time to properly test it this time, fallout 3 felt really rushed and sloppy.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Aricvomit on May 02, 2010, 02:25:23 am
latest issue of game informer has a preview or whatever. i read it, pretty much new everything they had to say already though.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: bikkebakke on May 05, 2010, 08:55:09 pm
An interview and short preview of what to come: here! (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/falloutnewvegas/news.html?sid=6260964&tag=topslot%3Bthumb%3B1&mode=previews&page=1)

While I think it will be a good game I fear that it will still be very easy, just as f3 was (you know... killing guys in advanced PA with shotguns etc :P)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Lexx on May 05, 2010, 09:28:24 pm
(you know... killing guys in advanced PA with shotguns etc :P)

No.

New Vegas is re-introducing damage thresold.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on May 05, 2010, 10:29:10 pm
I hope that those screens aren't a good example of the graphics on release, still has that f3 uglyness that looks out of place these days.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: bikkebakke on May 05, 2010, 10:35:32 pm
No.

New Vegas is re-introducing damage thresold.
oh many thanks to them for implementing that....
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Michaelh139 on May 23, 2010, 12:50:47 am
I hope to god the followers aren't overpowering like fo3 and that the only REAL tactic in the game besides grind them with a minigun or some other shit is to snipe them....

(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/1953/consoles.png)

Back to topic, gentlemen.
LMFAO.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Mystery on July 17, 2010, 04:52:35 pm
I don't think they're putting much time into it. It says there that it's releasing in the Fall... Unless just using the same old engine as Fallout 3 cuts back on the time needed to make NV.
I was hyped for Fallout 3 when I heard of it, and was bouncing on mah couch as it was loading. It was good for a few months, than that joy started deteriorating and I realized Bethesda should stick to making medival fantasies.
I hope that Fallout: New Vegas is going to be made more properly than #3 and I hope Interplay buys the rights back to Fallout and destroys it so that no more F3s can be made evar again...
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on July 17, 2010, 10:38:33 pm
Fallout 3, what's fallout 3? Heard it was cancelled. (living in denial is better)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Roachor on July 20, 2010, 09:34:40 am
I don't think they're putting much time into it. It says there that it's releasing in the Fall... Unless just using the same old engine as Fallout 3 cuts back on the time needed to make NV.
I was hyped for Fallout 3 when I heard of it, and was bouncing on mah couch as it was loading. It was good for a few months, than that joy started deteriorating and I realized Bethesda should stick to making medival fantasies.
I hope that Fallout: New Vegas is going to be made more properly than #3 and I hope Interplay buys the rights back to Fallout and destroys it so that no more F3s can be made evar again...

Interplay isn't a big player in the game industry and everyone good is long gone from there. Go read the wiki it's pretty pathetic.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: cerberix on July 25, 2010, 10:59:19 am
I have a question. When is going to be Fallout: New Vegas? Could someone give the date?
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Lexx on July 25, 2010, 11:42:25 am
19. October 2010, 22. October 2010 in europe.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Zarecki on July 25, 2010, 09:03:43 pm
You know... The whole thing about 3rd Fallout is afailure.... FALLOUT HAS ITS CLASSIC STYLE! From a StrategyRPG they made a 1st person shooter which was theyr mistake(althou they sold a lot of cds).

I dont even play Fallout 3 anymore because I came back to the Classic game Fallout 1 ,2 =D!
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: corosive on August 15, 2010, 04:14:47 am
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2010/08/13/listen-to-ron-perlmans-intro-to-fallout-new-vegas/

Theres an audio track of the game's intro or sumshit with ron perlman doing the VO. I was excited at first but its so fucking boring. WHats with the lame story for NV? Your some guy in NCR territory that gets shot in the head, you respawn 2238 style and have to find the PKer who killed you and get ur loot back... Here's a gun and anything else you bought with RL money to make your game easier because you cant simply use the fucking console and go player.additem 00022233F blah blah... Oh btw heres a pipboy you know there so rare and shit but I want you to have it, oh and take this dirty sweaty used ancient vault suit. BTW your probably a decendent from the original vault dweller and your mother was the arroyo's old lady....

Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Surf on August 15, 2010, 11:40:38 am
snip

"Hey, you know, our water thingy os broken, go out of here and fix it. Oh btw, here you have a pipboy, Ed out there on front of tje gate for sure has a gun for you. Oh, and while youre at it, please destroy these odd yellow creatures and save the world."

"Hey, you know our village is dying and we heard youre a descendant of the vault dweller. Here, take this pipboy and save the village. Oh, and while youre at it, destroy those evil black tinmen"


etc.

If you "analyze" the story in this way, it everytime sounds crappy. Also, do you rather want to hear how the world ended the 3729582th time in the intro?
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: corosive on August 16, 2010, 07:32:01 am
yes :)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on August 16, 2010, 07:36:29 am
hopefully the end of the world bullhit intro is skippable, I can't stand learning fictional ancient history...
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: runboy93 on August 16, 2010, 08:57:17 am
I don't even test NV, because it's got same looking than Fallout 3 and it sucks :P
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on August 16, 2010, 09:14:19 am
I have all the plans in the world to get new vegas, there is a 100% chance that it will be 200% better than TES5:Post-Apo Expecrience Sim (really shitty fps-system edition)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: brad smalls on August 16, 2010, 09:30:03 am
if your prone to rage mail dont read this

i am a huge fallout 3 fan i hink the old fallouts are god help me "out dated" and van buren is the most out dated pice of shit ever but i will agree wth you on one thing wtf is with las vagas not hit by a nuke wtf is that shit
china dude: ok now las vagas
other china dude:no its pritty
china dude ok i guess your right lets not nuke my boss wont mind
..... please dont steal my story for it is copyrighted
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: gordulan on August 16, 2010, 09:38:30 am
if your prone to rage mail dont read this

i am a huge fallout 3 fan i hink the old fallouts are god help me "out dated" and van buren is the most out dated pice of shit ever but i will agree wth you on one thing wtf is with las vagas not hit by a nuke wtf is that shit
china dude: ok now las vagas
other china dude:no its pritty
china dude ok i guess your right lets not nuke my boss wont mind
..... please dont steal my story for it is copyrighted

it's more like this

Commie 1: Let's nuke Vegas
Commie 2: No, no no, that just won't do
Commie 1: Why not?
Commie 2: Their leaders don't go there during wartime, and besides, where am I gonna go after we've won, that's the best place for gambling and hookers man!
Commie 1: You got a point there...
Commie 3: Hey guys, whatcha talking about?
Commie 1, and Commie 2: Nothin, nothin at all, you're to young for that...
*Commie 1 and 2 exit stage left*
Commie 3: Heeeey, guyys, wait for me!
*Commie 3 exits stage right*

Copyright: Stage8Gor Productions 2010
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Winston Wolf on August 16, 2010, 12:40:43 pm
if your prone to rage mail dont read this

i am a huge fallout 3 fan i hink the old fallouts are god help me "out dated" and van buren is the most out dated pice of shit ever but i will agree wth you on one thing wtf is with las vagas not hit by a nuke wtf is that shit
china dude: ok now las vagas
other china dude:no its pritty
china dude ok i guess your right lets not nuke my boss wont mind
..... please dont steal my story for it is copyrighted

Hey, there is a fire. Maybe you should go in there. The old Fallouts are outdated? They were developed 10 years ago, of course they are outdated. And why the hell do you call Van Buren a piece of shit? Oh right, because of the graphics and the isometric-view, allright. It's okay if you prefer good graphics (I wouldn't call that good graphics but compared to Fallout 1 and 2...) to a good plot and a believable world, but stop calling those games "a piece of shit". Did you even play Fallout 1, 2 and the Van Buren tech demo?
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Lexx on August 16, 2010, 02:09:18 pm
It is so obvious trolling, how can you even react on that.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Winston Wolf on August 16, 2010, 02:12:00 pm
It is so obvious trolling, how can you even react on that.

Is trolling the new word for being stupid?
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Surf on August 16, 2010, 04:11:21 pm
Is trolling the new word for being stupid?

I hate to say it, but I doubt it's trolling too.  :-\
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: corosive on August 16, 2010, 11:01:54 pm
marcus is coming back in NV... What do people think about their uhm "New" guns? They added some modern weapons that aren't really fallout cannon.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Lexx on August 17, 2010, 01:14:39 am
All of the shit in Fallout 3 wasn't fallouty anymore. So the weapon that come with NV don't make anything worse. Also in case of weapons, you can't speak of "canon", as Bethesda decides, what canon is and what not. If Bethesda would like it, blue bunnies that conquer the earth could be canon as well.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: brad smalls on August 17, 2010, 02:44:44 am
no i am not trolling this is what i turlly think my freinds like van buren will be the best and stuff no fallout 3 with its rpg greatness is the bomb i think fallour 2 is too hard for new comers well at least thats what i think but i am a enclave woreshiper so yeah
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Surf on August 17, 2010, 03:52:33 am
I dont want to be the forum nazi, but either you watch atleast a bit of your grammar, some exclamation marks and so on, or we will have problems on here pretty soon, brad. I even respect your opinion, even if I would rather hang myself then applying that FO3 was a good game, but your posts here for sure look like trolling.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: corosive on August 17, 2010, 04:21:06 am
Bethesda followed the Fallout timeline/ Bible to the tits didn't they?... the Fallout 3 story was technically made up in like 2002-2003 wasn't it? By Chris Avellone? Check this out http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline tell me if I'm wrong.
It says the data was compilled with the help of all datadisks from F1 to F3 but modified by Chris...

Anyhow I remember Bethesday bragging about how easy the story was to write because of the Bible...


Thoughts?
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Surf on August 17, 2010, 04:24:35 am
They "followed" it, yeh. They didnt add something new, or took away older stuff and changed it to fit in their design.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: corosive on August 17, 2010, 05:02:04 am
Well its better then nothing right? At least it looked good on paper ;P

Check out gamespots preview for NV - Contains Spoilers...
http://www.gamespot.com/events/quakecon2010/story.html?sid=6273403&pid=959557&mode=previews

Good? Bad? Keep in mind that it is poorly written (FU Gamespot)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: corosive on August 21, 2010, 12:14:51 am
No mutants allowed posted a great preview for NV narrated by Feargus himself! Check it out...http://g4tv.com/videos/48105/Fallout-New-Vegas-Senior-Designer-Interview/?quality=hd

NV will also have DLC's soooo FUCK YOU NEW VEGAS I ain't preordering you or buying you :) Maybe I'll get the GotY edition but until further notice (of multiplayer which will never happen) it's not worth the buy. Pirate sites will be busy soon...

Fuckin' devs making games that aren't worth buying or releasing DLC's every 3 months making the gamer spend another 10-20$ on new quests...


Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Surf on August 21, 2010, 01:53:21 am
Goty Edition? Have fun waiting a year or so.
Also. Isohunt, downloading games? First warning for you on here.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: corosive on August 21, 2010, 06:24:55 am
Whooops...anyhow yeah  I bet NV will earn Game of the Year within a few months of the release. All the F3 fans will be buying it, plus whomever gets sucked into it by the hype. It's going to make money whether or not we approve :( Oh well the Fallout team gets rich and gets the motivation to continue the series! Eventually they will go off and form their own independant company and revive the original series by the time we're old and decrepited or alteast mold Bethesda into a better company...

5$ says a new Fallout licensing lawsuit will occur over Bethesda and the original Fallout team. 5$ also says I end up bitting the bullet and buying NV prematurely and end up posting about it...  >:( Damn my lust for everything Fallout! I'm still looking for a used copy of Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel for the Xbox...Will play it once too then let it collect dust... Arg...

Anyhow, let's hear something positive about NV and the fact that the original Fallout team is working on it and that the rest of them are working on Project V.13 (The real Fallout Online, whom apparently know about this game 2238 and have stolen its concept! Anyone else remember reading something like that?)

Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Surf on August 21, 2010, 06:32:02 am
There are more then enough positive things about FO:NV. Infact, every single thing in it is better then in Failout 3.

And as said, dont talk about warez, it only gets you banned on here.

Anyway, no single developer makes the big $$$ out of it. Or are you being just naive?
And heh, I even have a copy of Fallout: Piece Of Shit (bought it on ebay) for the PS2 but the disc is scratched. Well, saved me probably from a heartattack.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: corosive on August 21, 2010, 06:43:21 am
I'm speaking as if the guys from the original Fallout team will be making some good moulah off of NV. Sure they won't be getting ALL of the profits but I'm sure their profits will be pretty fucking amazing :P...

Fallout: Piece of Shit is still Fallout anyways... and would look great in my basement! It's the storyline that attracts my attention...http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_Brotherhood_of_Steel... Your really critical Surf :P Slow down and smell the Broc flowers  ;D
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Surf on August 21, 2010, 06:53:03 am
I'm speaking as if the guys from the original Fallout team will be making some good moulah off of NV. Sure they won't be getting ALL of the profits but I'm sure their profits will be pretty fucking amazing :P...

Fallout: Piece of Shit is still Fallout anyways... and would look great in my basement! It's the storyline that attracts my attention...http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_Brotherhood_of_Steel... Your really critical Surf :P Slow down and smell the Broc flowers  ;D

Critical? Heh. I am just voicing the path of the sane minded.
I don't like that the whole Fallout New Vegas is set in some shitty Gangster Vegas crap. I like that they are setting the game in california though. I don't like that they are going to go with multiple weapons of mass destruction (did you notice these HORRIBLE animations of the rockets starting in that video?). I like the fact we see Marcus from Broken Hills. I don't like the fact he looks like a cheap ass Orc. I like the fact, that there will be some sort of Mark Morgan Music in it. I dont like the fact that it will be just remixed. I like the fact that they actually developed the roleplaying aspect of the game. I hate the fact that all the meaning fails when even seeing an ugly ass face like all of the gamebryo faces have. I could do that infinite times, the engine stays shit and I have my doubts about FO:NV.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: corosive on August 22, 2010, 03:15:32 am
Yeah it looks really choppy and the iron sights look like shit. Marcus looks like an Orc, yup. Its also too colourful, Eyebots looked cooler then those new cowboy robot bots. Storyline sounds like a blend of Van Buren and NCR's future (who cares? I don't. I hate NCR) Raiders are now Ceasar's Legion. Mathew Perry plays a "bad guy."

However Chris Kristopherson is in it :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDCZCCQVbRs, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alGN4MyKHXo

It doesn't look serious enough. Their dialogue  screen is too small ala F3. Arg... I can complain about it but I still cant wait to play it. Im going to enjoy the open storyline tho and will play as a good, bad, neutral, stupid character, and wandering serial killer (kill everyone and everything inside Vegas out of rage!)
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Michaelh139 on August 22, 2010, 07:33:30 am
Gonna be my usual dumbass self, buy it when its in stores, play it and try to ignore all the horrid things and suck in the few done-well things in it and maybe go shoot myself (jk).

Fallout 3, as shitty as it was, had its frikkin moments, and so will FO:NV, yes mutants look like fucking Orcs but that makes them harder cus they will fucking catch your ass if you try to run unlike the slow ass mofos here and in the originals, Iron sights = ugly but they're fucking iron sights in a RPG who gives a fuck?  Dialogue in FPSRPGs will ALWAYS be awful so don't get your panties in a knot over it, its simply not do-able, the most they can do is TRY to get the lips right and try and make it as serious (or funny if they're trying too) as possible, everything else will be bugged.  As said its a FPS RPG so it will be filled to the fucking sun with bugs.


And of course the fucking critics who rate these games 5 stars (LIKE ALWAYS) are being bribed to rate it 5 stars, I hope you people aren't naive enough to actually believe these motherfuckers are actually testing and rating these games like they're supposed too.  FUCK NO, they are being bribed to rate 5 stars and go up on video for a little bit to make it look like they're trying so don't believe them if the rating is your usual freaking 5 gold sprinkles because its may look good but its tastes like Bullshit.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: corosive on August 24, 2010, 09:55:15 pm
omg lol i was right! their trying to mix NV with Van Buren... check out NMA latest posts about NV! http://www.nma-fallout.com/

Aren't you excited? probably not but I am! Woot Van Buren characters. Although it isnt an official remake they clearly took what they liked (loved) from Van Buren and used it as canon. Van Buren apparently already happened and NV is set in the future of all these events, including F3. It will also have a definative ending to the Fallout series so far! You can also murder all 2,200 characters in NV and create your own chaoctic ending to the series. (All npcs except for 1 and children are killable) I personally would kill children in a vidgeo game if i was playing as an evil character, it dissapoints me that child killing is no longer in vidgeo games :( I know its evil and immoral but that is part of the experience. Killing a child affects the player emotionally, creating more serious ties to the player's character, expecially if the world around this player evolves from its actions.

Anyhow can't wait for NV, however I will not be pre-ordering it or buying any special packs. There is an 80% chance that I will buy it tho :( (damn you Fallout!) And then regret it by the time the GotY and DLC's are released.
I am simply looking forward to a NEW fallout story and the chance to explore some wicked dialog. Since Obsidian is creating the game, and from what we've seen from Alpha Protocol (amazing dialog; only reason to play it) NV will have some very impressive dialog and storytelling.

For all those who will hate NV please play the game as an evil char and destroy the world Bethesda polluted! You can murder over 2200 people anyways... that is a big number, too bad bullets have weight you'll have to make a couple of trips for this quest... 

Reward= Stress Relief and the avoidance of angry fan letters to the company. Down side: 60$ (59$ to Bethesda, 99 cents to Obsidian, and 1 hard earned penny for the guys making the music :P)

Anybody know if they will be releasing a new G.E.C.K?  BTw: Expect mods, cheats, and item codes (from the pre order packs) online within a week of the release. Don't fall for a crappy 20$ Armoured Vault Suit! Use player.additem 0068579 instead!
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Surf on August 24, 2010, 10:02:04 pm
The old GECK will most probably being able to load the FO:NV files, so no worries.
I personally won't use mods. I want to play the game the way the developers want, not some random fat guy creating mods in his cellar.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Michaelh139 on August 24, 2010, 10:05:48 pm
The old GECK will most probably being able to load the FO:NV files, so no worries.
I personally won't use mods. I want to play the game the way the developers want, not some random fat guy creating mods in his cellar.
Some random fat guy creating mods that fix the half-assed pieces shits Bethesesda has been conveyering out and enhances the game 10 fold. :P
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Surf on August 24, 2010, 10:07:33 pm
No mod can "fix" Fallout 3.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Michaelh139 on August 24, 2010, 10:09:13 pm
No mod can "fix" Fallout 3.
Close but no dice  :P.

Call of Duty Mod, mercenary mods, faction mods, all put together make the game a true survival game.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Surf on August 24, 2010, 10:11:18 pm
They still don't make them a "Fallout" game.
Anyway, this topic is not about FO3.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: corosive on August 24, 2010, 10:23:19 pm
The old GECK will most probably being able to load the FO:NV files, so no worries.
I personally won't use mods. I want to play the game the way the developers want, not some random fat guy creating mods in his cellar.

That's funny, that is pretty much how I expected the "Adult content" modders to be like. Some of those models they made for F3 are so realistic they eighter watched a lot of porn or have a nude model beside them... If you don't know which mods I'm talking about check out the top 100 mods at http://www.fallout3nexus.com THE most popular file is some nude mod. Talk about "preference" some people just need to have naked chicks in their games...

Lol btw I downloaded one of those mods :P got it with the Beauty pack to fix up the npc's faces/ eyes/ clunky textures/ more hair, etc... Turns out that without a "nude" mod you can't actually get the better clothing/ armour textures...Oh well it makes F3 look VERY PRETTY, it even adds DIRT to most Npc's faces. To be honest without the "Beauty" mods the game looks really ugly... On the down side however, it's really annoying to take an npc's armour then leave her dead and naked in the wasteland but on the bright side it's realistic... Underwear is simply too much of a hasle to wear in the wastes I guess lol when are you going to get a chance to do laundry? In the irradiated river? Oh thats right! You gotta "purify" the water before you can clean with it! Geez. ANyhow lol,
I know its pathetic but I've tried the game with and without the random mods and you need them to get that "Playable Wasteland Feel" If they made that retexture mod that didnt require the nude mod first then I wouldnt have gotten the nude mod. It's pretty lame imo when some chars just walk around naked or are found dead and naked in the wastes... You stumble upon it and it looks like someone just got raped and murdered (or vice versa) and if their all gibbed and missing their arms, legs, and head... You got yourself a torso with boobs to play with! "Easily amused eh?" Of course!

BACK ON TOPIC.

NV will have nude mods :( Bet ya 50, 000 caps!
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Ausir/My_Fallout:_New_Vegas_preview_-_part_2 More NV info...
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Lexx on August 25, 2010, 12:26:49 pm
omg lol i was right! their trying to mix NV with Van Buren...

Old news is old. Very old. That's known since long time.

Quote
THE most popular file is some nude mod.

This says all about the game's players.


New GECK will be released with the game.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: corosive on August 26, 2010, 12:54:01 am
That's what happens when you re-release a series to a different generation of gamers. I was like 10-12 or so when I got into Fallout 1 and 2 so by the time F3 came out I was expecting something serious. New gamers have the attention span of an american twelve year old with ADHD, so it's pretty obvious nude mods would come out. The new gamer needs to have certain things in it to grab its complete attention (Nudity, Gore, Immaturity, Simplicity, etc) Fallout 3 isn't a really "serious" or "respectable" game, it's not as "real" as Fallout 1 was. F1 was about survival with a bit of humour to balance out its darkness... F2 brough too much humour and altered the series, now we have F3 and FNV. Bright, colourful, and hilarious worlds that just happened to have been hit by nuclear holocaust.

Van Buren had the potential to be similar to F1 but sadly failed, I wasn't expecting them to recycle it but I'm just really glad they are. Let's hope they recycle the "serious" parts rather then the jokes.

But! To have a nude mod to a fallout game? Freakin' insulting! It's just a sad, sad day when a company tries to make a "fallout" game that looks better with freakin mods. I remember seeing the Van Buren tech demo (It's still available to download...) the female char was topless... I was shocked... for the longest time I thought Van Buren was being made by a bunch of immature drunk kids...and then it gets cancelled... Biggest mistake dev's can do with their games is to add nudity, it takes away from the seriousness of the game. The only exception I have seen so far in games is "The Saboteur" (you can turn the boobs off tho but those french topless stage singers are pretty entertaining) and a graphics mod for System Shock 2 I think its called Rebirth (the mother creature or witch, whatever, was topless but still scary as hell!)

Oh well, can't wait to kill 2200 npcs in Vegas!
http://nma-fallout.com/ Posted 2 new articles on NV factions and some more details on their "definitive ending"
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Aiux on August 26, 2010, 08:44:46 am
Okay, I only read about four maybe 6 pages of this thread before coming down with the case of the giggles. Everyone here fails to realize there would be on continuation of the fallout series without fallout 3. It brought fallout into the 21st century it allowed a new age of fans to embrace the fallout universe. It made sure the fallout name wasn't scraped and forgotten. Have you forgotten that fallout 1/2 came out over 10 years ago? This game from the 90's needed to be transformed into a PROFITABLE sequel. Meaning it wasn't aimed at the small international fan base but a larger(newer) audience. Van Buren although would have been a fanboys wet dream WOULD NOT HAVE EVER BEEN AS PROFITABLE AS FALLOUT THREE. It would have lead to the discontinuation to the fallout series. At least the spirit of the fallout games lives on. Oh and another thing most people born in the early and late 90's ever heard of the fallout series before fallout three came out. eh and "oh!" another thing I forgot. The person who said Fonline was better than F3 must have been snorting something, I mean damn xD.

Now for the gameplay.

For those completely playing out of V.A.T.S. and saying this game is all "just blowing off random heads". I have to say one/few thing to you..."Critical shot to eyes". nuff said. Now to the actual arguments.. when facing large amounts of enemy there is no way in hell you will be able to kill them all(except for the grim reaper perk but it's agreed that it needs to be removed/nerfed) without using the FPS perspective of the game. Hell I played most of the game in FPS(except for certain death claws and enclave shootouts >.>) Sure the combat became easy after you made your combat build and had fucking fawkes destroying everything that so much as bumped into you but then again you only get fawks late into storyline. If anything I haven't seen someone say anything about the combat when they raided the yao guai cave for that bobble head. This game was dynamic in the way it let you choose how you wanted to engage the enemy you could instally go into vats and pick them off from a far or run up to them and unload your clip into their faces. Maybe It's just me and 4+ million other people but I don't see anything wrong with the combat. Oh the majority of gamers today would never as so much as touch a turn based roleplaying/action game.

Dialogue & story

Here I can see your arguments because it was rather dull and lacking in the creative department. I give you this win.

Conclusion

In conclusion I have to say any arguments I've missed please kindly point out or debate with me. I didn't intend to ignite a flame war or anything just a healthy debate. Largely I've seen mass hate from this game because this game wasn't an isometric graphic game based off over hyped idealized demo. oh please pardon any grammar mistakes i wrote this late at night.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Winston Wolf on August 26, 2010, 09:43:12 am
Quote
Okay, I only read about four maybe 6 pages of this thread before coming down with the case of the giggles. Everyone here fails to realize there would be on continuation of the fallout series without fallout 3. It brought fallout into the 21st century it allowed a new age of fans to embrace the fallout universe.

Why should the fans of the old Fallout games want a new fanbase?

Quote
It made sure the fallout name wasn't scraped and forgotten.

It wasn't scraped and forgotten. People are still working on mods like killaps Restoration Project almost 12 years after the release of Fallout 2 , and I doubt we have to thank Bethesda for that.

Quote
Have you forgotten that fallout 1/2 came out over 10 years ago? This game from the 90's needed to be transformed into a PROFITABLE sequel. Meaning it wasn't aimed at the small international fan base but a larger(newer) audience.

I would be fine with that if Bethesda wouldn't turn Fallout into a FPS without any soul, pssing on the Fallout universe.

Quote
Van Buren although would have been a fanboys wet dream WOULD NOT HAVE EVER BEEN AS PROFITABLE AS FALLOUT THREE.

So it's more important for a game to be profitable than anything else? Aha Bye!

Quote
At least the spirit of the fallout games lives on.

It doesn't because of Fallout 3 and it's great community. You can bet your life on it!

Quote
Oh and another thing most people born in the early and late 90's ever heard of the fallout series before fallout three came out.

Again. Nobody needs them.

Quote
eh and "oh!" another thing I forgot. The person who said Fonline was better than F3 must have been snorting something, I mean damn xD.

What the fuck has FOnline to do with Fallout 3? If you mean Fallout, yes. It is cleary better than Fallout 3 if things like story, atmosphere, characters and so on are important to you. And where are your arguments here? "Durp, Fallout 3 is so much better, lolz xDDDD"

Quote
For those completely playing out of V.A.T.S. and saying this game is all "just blowing off random heads". I have to say one/few thing to you..."Critical shot to eyes".


Ehrm, yeah. What do you want to say? That you can kill the master with a critical shot in the eyes out of your 10mm pistol or that Fallout 1/2 is the same gorefest as Fallout 3? I mean come on, look how the body is exploding if you kill someone with a normal pistol.

Quote
Now to the actual arguments.. when facing large amounts of enemy there is no way in hell you will be able to kill them all(except for the grim reaper perk but it's agreed that it needs to be removed/nerfed) without using the FPS perspective of the game. Hell I played most of the game in FPS(except for certain death claws and enclave shootouts >.>)

Oh rly? At the end I had to fight HORDS of mutants and enclave soldiers and It was pretty easy. (Yes, on hardest difficulty)

Quote
Sure the combat became easy after you made your combat build and had fucking fawkes destroying everything that so much as bumped into you but then again you only get fawks late into storyline. If anything I haven't seen someone say anything about the combat when they raided the yao guai cave for that bobble head. This game was dynamic in the way it let you choose how you wanted to engage the enemy you could instally go into vats and pick them off from a far or run up to them and unload your clip into their faces. Maybe It's just me and 4+ million other people but I don't see anything wrong with the combat. Oh the majority of gamers today would never as so much as touch a turn based roleplaying/action game.

Thats because the majority of gamers today want to kill hords of critters so they can ROFLCOPTER their asses of. Look at some of the Mafia II reviews. "Too much focus on the story. No multiplayer..." Come on...

Quote
Dialogue & story

Here I can see your arguments because it was rather dull and lacking in the creative department. I give you this win.

So you admit Fallout 3 has a shitty dialouge and story and you still think it is better than Fallout 1/2? Aha Bye.


Quote
Largely I've seen mass hate from this game because this game wasn't an isometric graphic game based off over hyped idealized demo. oh please pardon any grammar mistakes i wrote this late at night.

There is mass hate from this game because they treat it like a piece of shit. They took the universe because they are too lazy and too avaricious to think about something own and turned it into a loveless FPS without any soul or background story. We don't expect a turn based game with isometric view, but a game which sticks to the Fallout canon, has a good story, atmosphere, characters and dialouges.
Title: Re: New Vegas: shit or not shit?
Post by: Surf on September 15, 2010, 07:30:41 pm
The companions of FO:NV revealed. : http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/09/15/fallout-new-vegas-for-ps3-meet-the-companions/

I have to say, I like 'em.