Gone But Not Forgotten

[Retlaw83]

Yes, somewhat. I still don't think that NV is a good game but that is mainly due to the appalling engine.

The engine is shit, but I can look past it in the case of NV because they did the best they could with it and because they didn't have the luxury of choosing what they got to work with.

Conversely, Bethesda didn't do their best (or their studio has no talent) and they chose to use the piece of crap engine.

From a writing standpoint, NV is a huge step towards the quality of the originals. I hated Bethesda's idea of first person shooter, and I wasn't thrilled with the way turn based was implemented in the original Fallouts, so I can live with Obsidian making decent first person shooter combat. I know I'll be crucified for suggesting such a thing, but the combat mode I liked the best in all the Fallout games was continuous turn-based in Tactics - if there was some option to pause to make targeted shots in CTB, that would be perfect for me.

I'd also prefer isometric view in future Fallouts, but that ship has sailed. For me it's more immersive because I have to use my imagination to fill in the small details instead of being bombarded by too much detail that breaks immersion when you've seen your third identical looking NPC in an area.

[rad resistance]

true that homes.

[Frater Perdurabo]

Yes, somewhat. I still don't think that NV is a good game but that is mainly due to the appalling engine.

The engine is shit, but I can look past it in the case of NV because they did the best they could with it and because they didn't have the luxury of choosing what they got to work with.

Conversely, Bethesda didn't do their best (or their studio has no talent) and they chose to use the piece of crap engine.

From a writing standpoint, NV is a huge step towards the quality of the originals. I hated Bethesda's idea of first person shooter, and I wasn't thrilled with the way turn based was implemented in the original Fallouts, so I can live with Obsidian making decent first person shooter combat. I know I'll be crucified for suggesting such a thing, but the combat mode I liked the best in all the Fallout games was continuous turn-based in Tactics - if there was some option to pause to make targeted shots in CTB, that would be perfect for me.

I'd also prefer isometric view in future Fallouts, but that ship has sailed. For me it's more immersive because I have to use my imagination to fill in the small details instead of being bombarded by too much detail that breaks immersion when you've seen your third identical looking NPC in an area.

The writing? I'll be honest, I haven't given the game more than a couple of hours of a chance (I did buy it though) but at least within the first town, I didn't really see a big difference in dialogue between NV and Oblivion. It looks the same and it pretty much feels the same.
I would like to give NV a try but I'm fairly busy and to be honest, it ranks extremely low when it comes to "computer games to play" priority.

[Retlaw83]

The writing? I'll be honest, I haven't given the game more than a couple of hours of a chance (I did buy it though) but at least within the first town, I didn't really see a big difference in dialogue between NV and Oblivion.

Never played Oblivion, but whoever wrote Fallout 3 can't craft a conversation or write believable dialog. Unlike in Fallout 3, I actually liked the characters and could empathize with them.

The following is a small spoiler, but Chief Hanlon at Camp Golf's PA-broadcast confession is the most poignant moment I've experienced in a videogame.

The moral ambiguity of Fallout 1 and 2 and the feeling you're not making the right choice no matter what you choose to do are back with a vengeance in NV.

[Frater Perdurabo]

The writing? I'll be honest, I haven't given the game more than a couple of hours of a chance (I did buy it though) but at least within the first town, I didn't really see a big difference in dialogue between NV and Oblivion.

Never played Oblivion, but whoever wrote Fallout 3 can't craft a conversation or write believable dialog. Unlike in Fallout 3, I actually liked the characters and could empathize with them.

The following is a small spoiler, but Chief Hanlon at Camp Golf's PA-broadcast confession is the most poignant moment I've experienced in a videogame.

The moral ambiguity of Fallout 1 and 2 and the feeling you're not making the right choice no matter what you choose to do are back with a vengeance in NV.

I played Oblivion for a total of four hours I think, hoping every moment that it would get better. It didn't.
Interestingly enough, I am playing Morrowind again - I used to play that game A LOT back in high school. It is in every single aspect far superior to the abhorrence that is Oblivion.
However, one thing that springs to mind about NV was that I remember some of the "choices" in the game being somewhat artificial - i.e. sometimes I felt that there wasn't really an option that really reflected how I wanted to play that character. Now I may be getting this wrong and perhaps this memory springs to mind from some other game but I vaguely reflect it being like that.

On that topic, how do you tend to play your RPGs? I usually go for the ultra-goody approach on my first playthrough because I feel that in this way you get to experience most of the content. On my second playthrough I usually play a villain etc something like that.

[Haris]

New vegas is what fallout 3 should have been in the first place. Fallout was never about combat or engine it runs it was "the feeling" and "art style" and New vegas nails it.

I feel same when i play New Vegas as i did when fallout 2 came out, no difference at all, even the bugs are suposed to be in there that i never encounter but everyone else talks about them.

Even the waiting time before release felt same now. I remember playing trough fallout 1, 10 times in 2 months before fallout 2 was released and i was just amazed when it came.

[Retlaw83]

I played Oblivion for a total of four hours I think, hoping every moment that it would get better. It didn't.

That's how I felt about Fallout 3. Went through the whole thing thinking, "Okay, this next town will present me with a logical story and meaningful choices." It never happened.

However, one thing that springs to mind about NV was that I remember some of the "choices" in the game being somewhat artificial - i.e. sometimes I felt that there wasn't really an option that really reflected how I wanted to play that character. Now I may be getting this wrong and perhaps this memory springs to mind from some other game but I vaguely reflect it being like that.

In NV, several times I've been ordered by Caesar or the NCR to do something for them, and instead of doing it how they wanted I found a way to make it work my way. I think some of that just has to do with being subjected to the whims of these factions. Something to keep in mind is just because your mission chunk says "Do this!" you can accomplish the goal a different way.

On that topic, how do you tend to play your RPGs? I usually go for the ultra-goody approach on my first playthrough because I feel that in this way you get to experience most of the content. On my second playthrough I usually play a villain etc something like that.

If I play something like Dragon Age, I try to be a noble hero then I'm a tyrant on the second playthrough. Something like Fallout, I found out very early in Fallout 1 that you get the most out of the experience by being a self-serving prick - which is pretty much the only way to be neutral in Fallout. On the second play through I'm usually a good guy, which I've found has several disadvantages in Fallout, and on the third I tend to indiscriminately slaughter a lot of people. In NV that third option is difficult because of how most settlements are aligned with a faction, and the fact most towns and factions have their shit together. I think it does a very good job of showing civilization taking root again after the clusterfucks of humanity seen in the first two games.

[S4ur0n27]

HARIS?