Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Fallout Discussion' started by ArmagdoGaming, Oct 29, 2019.
3. That is when Bethesda took over, in one way or another.
Voted 76, not in any meaningful order :
2. Paid cosmetics
3. Mtx (repair kits)
4. Online required
5. Prenium whatever
This is a deadly combo for any franchise
At least Fallout 3 & 4 tried (and achieved some things)
New Vegas, honestly. The environment didn't feel fun to explore, the general gameplay was just as much of a slog as Fallout 3, it lacked that post-apocalyptic feel that every game except it and 76 managed to have, and it somehow managed to make robot cowboys running casinos boring. How the hell do you waste a character like Victor?!
Also, the only good questline in the entire thing was the Two Couriers arc. Which was DLC.
And the quality of writing, c&c and quest design and role playability (I.e the important bits) don't do it for you?
Damn son. What a take. You're not obligated to like it by any means but I just can't get how New Vegas did worse things for the series over 3 or 4. If anything, it had to use 3 as a baseline and then tried to make a better game out of it.
I can't even vote 76. I don't even think if Bethesda cared about continuity or a vision for the series as whole that they would even consider this to be anything but a spinoff in every sense. It completely detracts from common sense derived from past lore, it focuses on multiplayer and a cash shop and subscription, it takes every bit of gameplay that Fallout 4 introduced and focuses its entire game around it really. Even if they were making things on the level of New Vegas and put out 76, I couldn't see it being a detriment unless it was affecting games that they were making. I don't think 76 proved anything to be worthwhile for them to do in that regard besides the fact they learned they can still make a lot of money with little effort or care.
I'm stuck between 3 and 4. Fallout 3 pretended to get Fallout and put it into the gameplay aspects of a post-Morrowind Bethesda game. Was it done poorly? Yes. Was it as bad as Fallout 4? No. Fallout 4 completely wrecks the idea of what it means to level up compared to past entries and not even in a way that was a great improvement. It was steps back. If you see two perks you could take upon level up and one is literally 25% more damage with your weapon preference and the other is you don't drown underwater in a game that you spend very little time underwater, how can you even justify that? Especially knowing that the entire game, or most of it, scales with your level. So if you aren't taking a health buff, a damage buff, or something of the sort you are hurting yourself by getting anything that alters conventional bits. That's why skills being skills and perks modifying game rules all while being separate work so much better. Fallout 4 does a lot of other things horribly too. This was one of the worst offenders.
See, I never felt much roleplay potential. I really never get those out of most games to be honest. GURPs and D&D/D20 Modern are really the only games that will absolutely let you be 100% in character however you want. The quality of writing was mediocre for the "main" factions but great for some side quests and every companion in the game.
My biggest issue with New Vegas, and why it occupies this unique spot in my heart as my least favorite Fallout game (out of the ones I've played. I will never pick up BoS or 76) but favorite game is the endgame factions to be honest. Bethesda screwed up the Insitute but I could see why the scientists think they're doing good. 80% of projects are kept entirely secret by the staff directly working on them and they're fed this idea that the surface is irredeemable.
The Caesar and his Legions are such bad villains. They claim to believe they're the key to saving the Mojave, then turn around and raze and destroy it without constructing settlements. You give me a bad guy who believes his own trash, at least make them seem to believe it. House's endings just result in New Vegas staying the same, but without the Hoover damn conflict. I guess he resettles Freeside and the Dam, but that's it. And then we can't even get to experience the outcomes of our actions. Our choices only effect what Ron says in that sexy voice during the ending slide.
Additionally, every Dam-faction ending is predetermined by KARMA and faction. This wouldn't be an issue if Karma in Fallout wasn't a slider of good vs evil. One would think the series known for exploring post-apocalyptic American philosophy would explore law vs chaos first.
Because New Vegas being post-apocalyptic wouldn't make any sense because it's been well over 200 years. Fallout 3 and 4's setting makes no sense because it looks like the bombs fell like 20 years ago. And yet it's been 200 years and it makes humanity look like a bunch of lazy assholes that stood around doing anything. Fallout 1 somehow looks better and that's 84 years after the bombs fell.
Except they do? They assimilate the defeated enemy into their ranks and force them to live by their rules because they believe only force will make the wasteland stop being such a war torn place. And the Legion has built settlements or else they wouldn't be trying to conquer New Vegas.
That's the entire point. It's for New Vegas to be the capital of the wasteland and anyone that wants to live a good life has to come to New Vegas. What did you expect? He literally tells you he wants New Vegas to be the center of the world.
You can't experience the outcome of your decisions because it's meant to be ambigous on what happens besides what happens in the ending slides. It's also meant to be an actual ending and not pretend like the nonsense in Fallout 3 and 4 where nothing you do for the ending matters.
I honestly don't know how people can look at 3, 4 and New Vegas and say New Vegas had a worse impact on the franchise. That's just flat out false. New Vegas actually tried to be like the first two games unlike 3 and 4, which just tried to be Elder Scrolls with guns.
Yeah, all the games have stupid ties to karma besides Fallout 4. It's one thing I don't like. It's still a far better ending than Fallout 3's. I've never advocated for Karma, I think it's too simple and doesn't work out the way you'd want it to. Fallout 4 may not have had it but if it did, it would just be practically forcing you to be good karma all game.
In what Fallout game have we been able to really see much of the changes that we saw in the endgame slides? Better it just end there like Fallout 1. It's a good choice. Having areas drastically change in ways that actually make sense would require a ton of work and/or cutting down a lot of variables in decisions you could have made. For a game made in half the time of Fallout 3, I think that the ending was a good decision to have it just end. They warn you of the point of no return. They do it straight forwardly which is admitting a little awkward but whatever, at least you were warned.
Norzan covered the other points well enough I think.
New Vegas downplayed the karma to the point i don't know why they didn't just removed it. People reacting to your actions makes a lot more sense than some out of universe meter that tracks down the consequences of your actions.
Yeah it really did. I kinda wish they had just removed it. It only plays a factor in a very few cases. I don't even remember it being a factor in the ending to be honest.
Evil Wild Cards lead to Vegas being plunged in chaos. Screw you if you played a mobster type character with all the minor factions at your back, it devolved into chaos despite your supporters.
Neutral Wild Cards... I fucking forget tbh
And good wild cards just get something decent irc.
The evil ending for the anarchist ending leads to chaos. Who would have predicted that?
I also recall the karma system in New Vegas is bugged in a few areas. Like, it's way too easy to get good karma and really hard to get evil karma.
*The evil ending for the ending involving someone who would have rather started their own nation
Not every Wild Card courier is an anarchist. If anything, I'd say more people played a Wild Card because they thought the main factions weren't who they wanted in charge
So I looked it up. And yeah, karma does affect how they word the endings. Is that really a big deal though?
New Vegas endings
These are the variations for Independent Vegas.
If you ask me, these are just things that describe the Courier based on how they behaved in the world. There's three wordings for each ending depending on your karma alignment. They aren't that serious. It's not like Good Karma NCR is like NCR is great everyone loves each other, peace and democracy and then Bad Karma NCR is like TYRANNY HIDDEN THROUGH DEMOCRACY, SHADOW GOVERNMENTS SENDING ASSASSINS TO ALL THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE FIXED POLLS. The Independent endings just word how you likely saw it. You're bad, oh you probably like the lack of law enforcement in an independent Vegas. You're good, you believe in independence over all else and made an independent Vegas. They don't really say that the bad karma ending results in Vegas being burnt down or that good one doesn't. Just more or less why the Courier seems to have chosen this path.
EDIT: Doing a search on the page for "karma" also only shows the word being used about 15 times and all of them being in those endings. So I really don't get that criticism.
Never said it burned down. Just said it implied that New Vegas falls into chaos shortly after you take over. Why can't my charismatic evil genius competently run a small city? What if I was (and I'm sorry for using this example so much) a mobster instead of a serial killer?
No where do they say you weren't a mobster and you were a serial killer in that ending.
Once again, let me show you what it said, "Supporting all the chaos that comes with independence, the Courier was the man/woman responsible for a truly free New Vegas. He/she ensured the fall of Mr. House and the end of the Legion's and NCR's influence over New Vegas."
A mobster running a competent city could benefit from the chaos that comes with independence from the NCR, House, and Legion. Do you believe this to be untrue?
I believe that the chaos coming with that would be a disadvantage. The corrupt NCR officials you could bribe would be useless, competition would thrive, and your operation would be in constant danger. There's a reason why New Reno is a powder keg. A more lawful evil type would benefit more from order in the transition from warfare to independence,
You don't think the removal of NCR troops and Legionnaires could be read as "the chaos that comes with independence"? There will be chaos in New Vegas if it were to go towards complete independence of the three major players. I have no doubt this would happen. Look at Freeside as it is now. Look at the casino families and what they're doing.
What does this mean? Are you still implying that the chaos that is mentioned is strictly anarchism or something? The idea is that New Vegas is independent and self ruling rather than having the NCR or the Legion gaining control of them. House is gone now too, which means you are shifting who controls the city. There will always be a bit of chaos with that. It may not be anarchism and riots and gangs running in the streets but there will be upset, there will be confusion and moments where clarity is not fully there.
Nowhere in that ending does it say something that if you were the bad karma, Independent Vegas Courier that suddenly New Vegas plunges into a lawless city. You are responsible for New Vegas being free. Free to itself. Maybe under your rule or maybe something more democratic. But definitely not under Mr. House and not under outside influences like the NCR or Legion. I think you're reading a bit too much into an ending that was left somewhat ambiguous for a reason.
Isn't the entire point of the Wild Card ending so that New Vegas has no ruler? Meaning not even you rules it and the city gets pretty much divided into different sections, each ruled by a specific faction. There's no ending in New Vegas where the Courier becomes the leader of New Vegas.
I'm not sure. I think the ending is a bit vague enough that it's moreso that the Courier chooses to allow New Vegas to choose its own future. Even then, some Courier with the mindset to control the city themselves could very well use this time period to try and influence people to support their rule. Whether it was put to a vote or if they gain enough of a following to seize that control. Hence, why the ending would imply an evil Courier would support the chaos that comes from it. Or you could read it as, this is something the Courier ideologically seems to value. They could easily not care to rule Vegas either if it's just a value they uphold. It's not like we can concretely tell. That's what I really don't get about the criticism.
Truly though, the criticism was about how the karma system would affect the endings. Especially the independent one. But if you read them. They are the same except for these beginnings.
G: Supporting the ideals of independence
N: Preferring neither the best of the NCR nor the worst of the Legion
E: Supporting all the chaos that comes with independence
I don't see how this makes a major difference in the ending anyway rather than a slight perspective on why the Courier felt that way.