Anyone have idea why New Vegas is already under $20.00?

Discussion in 'Fallout: New Vegas Discussion' started by sampson70, May 6, 2011.

  1. outofthegamer

    outofthegamer Still Mildly Glowing

    226
    Apr 12, 2011
    Do you know that reason? It's because Tokyo was the main target of conventional bombing during WW2, and was already in shambles by the time we dropped the A-bombs.

    This is true, but they don't want to destroy the resources, they want to take it for themselves.


    I got nothin' here, you are absolutely right. But i thought most of the bases were in northern Nevada, not near Vegas. I am unsure on this though.
     
  2. Surf Solar

    Surf Solar So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Aug 20, 2009
    Must we really go *again* through this FO3/FNV bashing? It's utterly inane... :roll:
     
  3. outofthegamer

    outofthegamer Still Mildly Glowing

    226
    Apr 12, 2011
    O RLY? so less bombs = more radiation?
    That makes sense. I am dumb.

    You win the interwebz.
     
  4. Courier

    Courier Venerable Relic of the Wastes
    Orderite

    Apr 10, 2011
    But the US was going to have to invade Tokyo anyways to take over Japan, the Chinese weren't planning on invading D.C. as it had no value to them. Their plan was probably to try and quickly take over Alaska and the West coast, then move down to the Gulf and cut the US off from their oil resources. Of course it didn't happen that way.

    Edit: They don't want to destroy the resources, they want to destroy all American resistance in the area so they can take control as fast as possible. Also don't get me wrong, D.C. would have been bombed there's just no reason it would have been bombed more than the strategic locations China needed.[/i]
     
  5. TheGM

    TheGM The voice of reason

    Aug 19, 2008
    I'm more for the pointing out obvious plot holes,inconsistencies, poor story and calling out the defenders of such....doesn't really matter what game it is.

    But that is just me.

    I think Uranium has a new rival on the dense meeter. :P

    Read again....out loud might help as well.
     
  6. Faceless Stranger

    Faceless Stranger Board Drifter

    Aug 19, 2010
    So, this is the "Heavily bombed capital"


    As compared to the Glow, which actually was a crater, and the Boneyard where the buildings were stripped to their frames...

    One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong. :)

    And as a sidenote, it seems that whenever Quagmire gets involved in a thread, a flamewar seems to follow.
     
  7. DexterMorgan

    DexterMorgan A Smooth-Skin

    647
    Aug 6, 2008
    This thread makes baby Jesus cry.
     
  8. Lexx

    Lexx Testament to the ghoul lifespan
    Moderator Modder

    Apr 24, 2005
    No, it has to be done in every other thread or the earth is going to explode and we don't want that.
     
  9. Stanislao Moulinsky

    Stanislao Moulinsky Vault Fossil

    Jul 16, 2009
    The solution is simple (if you are a decent developer): don't make the game take place in a location that should be a crater or give a reason for it. Do you know why the Mojave Wasteland isn't a radioactive crater? Because Obsidian came up with the explanation that Mr. House protected it. Do you know why in the Mojave Wasteland there's electricity? Because they use batteries and there's the Dam.

    Gameplay and story segregation. Happens all the time that the hero overcomes impossible, unrealistic odds.
     
  10. Iabimyshkin

    Iabimyshkin First time out of the vault

    64
    Dec 20, 2010
    I really feel that anyone trying to defend the plot, story, characters and setting of Fallout 3 is sitting in quick sand. Now I loved Fallout 3 and played it for nearly 200 hours. When I tried to play it again I realised it had no replay value whatsoever, no varying choices and consequences. I tried to back and do a bad karma game but the whole story was set up to make you being a bad guy 1. be completely nonsensical 2. have no variation from good guy story 3. have no significant consequences. I had fun playing Fallout 3 but it is a brainless shallow game and I have no desire to play it again.

    I'm not criticising it for the sake of it at all. There is no characterisation, there is no substance to people, places, factions and to claim there is, well it's baffling. Most of Fallout 3 is put together in a series of parts that are there because it will be fun or because it will be or look cool. I tried to justify to myself, in the Fallout world its the future maybe the nukes were more powerful than the ones we know. Okay but Washington would be cinders, there would be nothing left. Why did they set it in Washington? Because it would be cool. 200 years after a nuclear was the radiation levels would not as they are in Fallout 3, why are they? because it was cool. Okay but why set it 200 years after the war? That's been said anyway. Your dad never stops saying he loves you but he treats you like shit. He evidently thinks the vault is no way to live and there are bigger, better things out there to be achieved but he set out to leave you there for life with no explanation, knowing you'd be in danger with the overseer. Fawkes at the end telling you NO it is YOUR destiny to go into the radiation and die even though I could quite easily go in and do it without any harm, well I just don't feel like it okay? Now go die. Silly.

    The raiders, yeah the raiders. They are feral, no different from feral ghouls. They have no motives, they have no desires, they have have no background, they have no future, no reason it exist. They are not a group, they are individual mindless zombies. They want to kill you or anyone for no real reason and without any negotiations. They don't converse, they are autonomous and not human.

    The 'towns'. Gildershade- they'd be dead. Even within the realms of Fallout 3, they'd be dead. A settlement of two people not that well hidden. The capital wasteland is not civilised, there are mindless killers raiders, mutants, robots overrunning the place. That is how the setting is made, unforgivable and incredibly dangerous. No laws, no towns, nothing to defend anyone. They'd be dead long ago. Canterbury commons is a big trading town of two buildings and four people or so, hardly a commercial hub is it? Megaton a self contained that highlights the problem with all the settlements in Fallout 3- no agriculture, this is simply lack of attention to detail., something which is concomitant with Fallout 3.

    I mean it's all been said but arguing depth of anything in Fallout 3 is futile. Anyone who prefers it is fine by me, just admit it, you don't care that its shallow and nonsensical because its fun. New Vegas is flawed but the setting is better and makes sense, the characterisation is better and deeper, the plot, background, choices etc. much more depth, more realistic and more faithful to the series. You didn't have as much fun with it as Fallout 3 ? Fine, but it wasn't a real RPG. The only thing, the ONLY thing Fallout 3 did better for me was the feel of a large scale battle. That WAS better in Fallout 3 for sure.

    Shouldn't get so petty in these discussions! I know we're all passionate and everything. I do think Fallout 3 was shallow and superficial but I did have fun at the time and I don't think we should trade insults over it (much as I think i'm right). I'm making an informed decision, unlike a lot of people on this forum I went into Fallout 3 excited, giddy and wanting to love it. For a time, I did love it. It had some great atmosphere and was great to wander the wasteland in 3D! Fallout 2 was a very good story based FPS. I really don't feel it had much more RPG element to it than, say, Bioshock. I know you could do your character stats but with the perk every level your character wasn't customised for anything they would just be maxed out and able to do everything perfectly before long, so without the story elements, the choices and multiple outcomes there was very little role playing going on.

    Also the point about the courier taking on the whole legion- plot hole yes, but it's game play licence! This is true for A LOT of games since the beginning. In Doom II the whole Earth is evacuated as the demons of Hell are released on Earth. No one left but one solider, but the main hero can take the whole planet back himself? In Fallout 1 and 2 our hero did it all on his own were others failed. I mean it happens in nearly every game this 'plot hole', including Fallout 3. You get somewhere and something that couldn't be done by multitudes of people can be done by the hero, even alone if need be. That isn't much of an argument for anything.
     
  11. brfritos

    brfritos Humma Kavulaaaaaaa

    638
    Sep 8, 2009
    Actually yes, the symbolic purposes would be mesurable. Look what Al Qaeda did when they hitted the Pentagon? The Pentagon is one of the core US armed forces administrative centers, but they have others, so destoying it would not render the country army inoperable. But look the psychological effect on the population and their leaders.
    The bomb raids on Berlin in 1943/1945 from the military point of destroying the enemy infra-structure and blowing the war effort of Nazi Germany was a complete and utterly failure.
    But in the long term was a sucess, since the nazis had to divert resources from other locations, lost time reinforcing the city defenses and losted a lot of specialized workers.

    You know, this is the biggest issue I have with FO3 and ME2. In ME1, whatever you think about the gameplay and story, they give you a reason for what happens in a location, why your equipment works that way, why you can or can't do things.
    In ME2 they simply changed this in favor of "cool" things, some wich contradicts A LOT of the first game.
    Sometimes the DLC content even contradict what they already said in the game!
     
  12. Iabimyshkin

    Iabimyshkin First time out of the vault

    64
    Dec 20, 2010
    One more thing, regarding the targeting for the atomic bombs, the priority etc. The great nuclear war in Fallout was a full scale, all or nothing, knives out, cards on the table BIG BIG BIG BIG cold war paranoia, 50s sci fi comic, EPIC nuclear exchange. Vast, vast, VAST............VAST. Thus I would suggest that more than one missile would be ready to go and aimed at every major target. I would also suggest that this delightfully melodramatic and desperate WORLD nuclear war would be an exchange between all nuclear powers and countries with nuclear capabilities- USA, China, Russia, the UK, France (if they haven't already surrendered :wink: ), India, Germany- the lot. This war is the kind that was the worst nightmare of the paranoid of the 50s to the 80s. My point being that there were multiple targets, aimed at by multiple countries and I don't think there would have been as much prioritising as speculated here. Oh shall we bomb Washington or shall we bomb here? No, none of that. Just about ever major American city would've had it in the Fallout war.

    'The entire world was reduced to cinders'

    Basically it was a right old skirmish. With the future tech seen in Fallout you'd have to assume the nuclear weapons were of of a higher tech than we know too, i.e. BIG BOOM yeah? The kind of weapons that sweep across a continent and leave the damage we see in Fallout 1 and 2, endless desert and skeleton buildings were there once were great cities. Just saying, that is a silly argument, they'd prioritise this over that blah blah. For me, the story goes, the whole country was obliterated with nuclear death. All the major cities would be hit directly. Except Vegas thanks to Mr. House. This explanation helps the Fallout 3 plot hole though I still think there was far too much left of Washington. Anyway, there are a right couple of rants right there. These are delaying tactics because i'm meant to be writing an essay, instead i'm boring you lot. Ta ta.
     
  13. Dalex

    Dalex First time out of the vault

    51
    Mar 26, 2011
    WTF????
    Are you serious?
    What a pile of s%%%.
     
  14. Dalex

    Dalex First time out of the vault

    51
    Mar 26, 2011
    Oops, double post.
     
  15. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I hated the battle at hoover dam. It was kinda ... anti-climatic for me.
     
  16. brfritos

    brfritos Humma Kavulaaaaaaa

    638
    Sep 8, 2009
    In NMA people usually have strong opinions about FO3. :cool:

    I understand what you mean, it lacks grandiosity, doesn't? I mean, it's a battle wich will decide the future of NV between two armies or you using this two armies for your own purposes and THAT was the best Obsidian could do it?
    I don't buy all the Gamebryo excuses, it could be a lot better.

    They changed the last gate before entering the Legate Camp BTW, the run is a little shorter now.
     
  17. toneone

    toneone First time out of the vault

    34
    Mar 24, 2009
    Woha, i have heard that folks argued hard about Fo3 but i have never seen it first hand. I just don a helmet and jump through the trenches here if you dont mind?

    To be honest Fo3 was an enjoyable game. It had plotholes, was bland from the moral choice side of the Fo series, had little replay value and was "dumbed down" or rather designed to appeal to broader spectrum of gamers. But that still does not mean it could not be enjoyed. I am old enough to own the original retail copies of Fo1&2 and i enjoyed it. Lots of places to explore, little stories here and there. I give folks the point that the main quest line was not everyones cup of tea. But still the game left plenty of room for roleplaying and more than enough stuff to do if you really didnt care for the main quest. But i also have to say that i would not have keept playing Fo3 if it werent for the thriving modding community and their numerous additions to the game. The dlc´s didnt really caught me.
    Operation Anchorage/broken steel had some canon value at least, but the rest was just novelty and sucked when you really think about it.
    I guess what i am trying to say is stop being a grognard and enjoy things for what they are and not think about what they should be/could have been. No game ever will be perfect for everyone. And when you know a tiny bit about game development you see that you have to make compromises between some things to achive fun for the consumer.
    If Fo3 had been like Van Buren was meant to be, than the other party would spurge about it beeing a crappy game while the older Fo´ers would praise it.
    Its just how things are, cant change that.

    Nv on the other hand is better in some areas but also has its problems. The atmosphere and story density is better imho. The companions are likeable and actually add something to the game.
    In Fo3 i only traveled with Dogmeat, the rest of the followers were just bland and added nothing.
    It is way more tough and balanced than Fo3 was. I never died to a giant radscorp in Fo3 and raped deathclaws with a 44. revolver. Not so much in NV.
    The weapon system in general is more developed, and going for melee makes actually sense now.
    Character building requires more thoughts and choices. You just cannot be good at everything. Same goes for the storyline, you can not do everything in one go and have a choice of a multitude of endings for a lot of different factions and people.
    Problems are also in some plotholes and compromises, and in the design of the world overall. A lot of places could have used more travel markers and you are forced to walk a lot of ways over and over again. Invisible borders are also a really lame way to prohibit the player from traveling to some places.

    Phew. :D
    Thats enough for now i think.
    One last thing though.
    I am kind of new around here so i dont want to jump on the "bash outofthegamer wagon" .
    But 4chan just called and said they wanted their slang back brah.
     
  18. Hotpoint

    Hotpoint First time out of the vault

    39
    May 24, 2009
    The annoying thing to me is that they could have put in an explanation but didn't. That, along with many other annoyances which needed addressing, is one of the reasons I started writing New California Dreaming.

    Let's take DC for example. The reason why it's like the way it is is because the US Military managed to shoot down the Chinese bombers heading for the centre of town. They did manage to deliver some fairly high-yield bombs around the outskirts of the city (airbursts scouring off most of the suburbs and a small number of surface bursts shattering the raised freeways) but no city-busters detonated on or over central DC.

    However neutron bombs did kill off most everyone in town and Salted Bombs left behind so much long-lasting fallout in the area nobody could move back in for many decades. Also the neutron bombs and radioactive cobalt killed off the plant-life allowing much the soil to wash away (hence the rocky terrain).

    I'll keep going. A single prototype ICBM carrying a multitude of MIRV'ed mini-nukes did manage to deliver its cargo over DC causing the limited damage seen all around. The Chinese used this one-off ICBM because they suspected the Washington DC defences would intercept most incoming warheads so they sought to beat them with saturation.

    The long-lasting fallout kept out everyone but Ghouls for ages (and Super-Mutants but they were very few in number until humans started to return). There used to be a good trade of salvaged goods from DC (initially a Ghoul monopoly) to the surrounding regions but trade bought raiders and more people meant more Super-Mutants which strangled the regional economy.

    Rivet City used to be a trade hub for goods which were collected by boat (the Duchess Gambit is one of the last of these) but the fighting between the BoS and the Super-Mutants wrecked its economic base.

    Girdershade was a stop-off for traders operating between DC and towns to the west (just off the map) but the raiders in Evergreen Mills made it too hazardous a route so the town is dying and only has two hold-outs left.

    etc. etc. etc.

    Honestly you can explain a lot of it but they just didn't bother to do so in the game and they should have in order to make the game... well better.
     
  19. Iabimyshkin

    Iabimyshkin First time out of the vault

    64
    Dec 20, 2010
    I don't wanna be hypocritical; I am expressing hindsight views. I clocked in nearly 200 hours on Fallout 3. When I first got it I wanted to have sex with it. Waited a decade for a new Fallout, I still play the first two every couple of years and love them very much. Unfortunately as time went by the flaws just screamed out at me. It's a husk of a game and not even a real sequel. It was an ill conceived tribute to the original Fallout but lacked depth and detail.

    On a more positive note I thought visually it was amazing. Exploring the wasteland was a sensory delight. Plus as I said the epic battles are far better than in New Vegas. If you want proof that the engine could cope with that kind of thing... erm, yeah it did in Fallout 3. The big battles at the end and in the Broken steel DLC were pretty sweet.

    This is pretty off topic I guess...
     
  20. Iabimyshkin

    Iabimyshkin First time out of the vault

    64
    Dec 20, 2010
    YES I totally agree with that! They could easily have explained all that stuff! Through better writing it would have all worked. When I played it I just had to imagine it like that but shouldn't really have to! NO background to anything, most people don't even talk they just KILL mindlessly YAWN. No substance.

    I would even forgive Bethesda now if they did try and clean up their own personal Fallout story and try and explain away some of these things. Give their eastern Fallout world some depth and foundation to build on in the next one. Please, please stay over there on the East coast. I'll respect the more if they make their own story and not completely arse up what Interplay and Obsidian have done...