Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fallout: New Vegas Discussion' started by chunglord420, Apr 2, 2020.
Months late. I'd say there was no thunder to steal anymore.
One would imagine a site as critical of nonsensical Bethesda storytelling as NMA is would also acknowledge some aspects of New Vegas are completely nonsensical (like Caesar dropping all pretense of intellect by sending someone who completely sabotaged his plans, alone, to destroy a bunker, and actually take his word at face value).
It feels weird one cannot be critical of New Vegas' writing without having a dozen people compare it to Fallout 3 and 4 (which is akin to saying "well it is BAD, but not THAT bad"), or resort to mental gymnastics ("muh clean slate") to justify the poor thought that went into some characters or quests. Even Sawyer acknowledges the game had some serious issues, and mans up about it instead of hiding behind the "muh 18 months" (which Obsidian agreed to and should have worked with in mind) argument.
Nobody is saying the game is perfection, in writing or in gameplay.
Of course there are problems, and of course we've seen Sawyers and Avellone's admission that they could have worked better with the dev time, and changes to their design should they have the time again. However, given Obsidian have arguably not made a better game than NV since NV came out, means that we should not always take their word as gospel, as some of the changes to the design of NV that they wanted they got to implement in future games, arguably with worse results (see TOW as an example)
The fact that they agreed to the 18 months is not exactly the greatest counter. We don't know what the conditions were exactly, but I can imagine that the temptation to do Fallout again was too much for the devs who had invested so much into that universe, not to mention the ability to capitalise on a newly successful franchise thanks to Fallout 3. Obsidian also had a track record in doing games in too little time and them suffering (KOTOR 2 being an example even if the final game is great.)
Finally, we brought up the Beth games cause the creator of this thread did. He wanted the comparison, and thus provided us with the ammunition. I'm not sure why we should weaken ourselves in a defence of NV by pointing out its possible flaws. We can do that elsewhere in other threads, should we wish.
Why aren't you mentioning every flaw you can think of when arguing why something is good? God, you hypocritical fan boys really piss me off.
Nobody is saying it, but whenever legitimate criticism of the game's writing or gameplay arises there's always the inevitable comparison as to how FO3's and FO4's are worse, which terminates any kind of discussion regarding New Vegas' flaws. That, or childish strawmen like @SquidVan 's.
I can't speak about TOW since I never played it (the announcement trailer was enough for me to dismiss it, and judging from the fan response I didn't miss much). But New Vegas didn't need a massive combat redesign, or dialogue redesign, or quest redesign, and so forth. It just needed some basic tweaks, which mods were able to implement (to some degree).
What happened is exactly what you describe: Obsidian knew they had 18 months, but aimed for the moon: this was Fallout, and they weren't settling for "small but complete and polished". Which is fine, but many of the game's issues arose because of that.
I think that either way New Vegas wasn't going to be as well received as Fallout 3 was: it received less than stellar reviews partially because it was based in Fallout 3, partially because of the bugs. Getting rid of the bugs (most of them, at least) but delivering a smaller game would have also caused reviewers to say "it's a small Fallout 3, therefore bad". And in that way, the game was rigged from the start: you just can't make a game as big or bigger than Fallout 3, with better looking assets, and without bugs. In a way, Bethesda basically guaranteed New Vegas would never eclipse Fallout 3 when it came to critical acclaim. But because bugs can be squashed and writing is the one thing that can be much better without relying on a bigger game or better assets, that's where New Vegas shines brightest in comparison to Fallout 3.
BiggumsBoi explained why someone may or may not like New Vegas, and he only got personal attacks and flimsy arguments as a response. He didn't even say the game was bad, just stuff that I also personally consider to be truth: that the game's story isn't particularly good (considering there's barely a semblance of a story in New Vegas; the minute you join a faction it's just "ok do all these things for me"), and that many of the quests are boring, and that as such that can be a turn-off for some people.
As well as know, "boring" is subjective. The idea that if you think New Vegas is boring then it stands true that you will find Fallout 3 to be even more boring is just mistaken, so I don't see why people use it as an argument that he was absolutely wrong. Some people think New Vegas is boring and Fallout 3 is very fun, others think otherwise.
A more productive discussion is "why do you find X boring?".
Thank you, thank you.
Always happy to see a joyous crowd! Come back in 2022 and I'll do it again!
Umm what? I made a long response to Biggums and his claims about BOS quests just being fetch quests were plain wrong. Even if you have played a little bit of the game you would know that his claim about the BOS quests were false. If you think my response was flimsy then give some examples of what I did wrong
This is my personal opinion and it clearly differs from yours, but just because the quest placed items in locations I could have visited anytime and are absolute standalones doesn't make the fetch quest any more interesting or less fetchy.
To be clear: remove Still in the Dark and basically nothing changes about how the game plays. Still in the Dark is first and foremost Obsidian fleshing out the Brotherhood of Steel (isolation, requiring the help of an outsider), but also a way for them to redirect the player to locations that are interesting on their own, without the need of Still in the Dark to be attached to them. This is because there are already quests that deal with those locations and make a far more efficient use of them (quests associated with the NCRCF, Nelson, Nellis, Vault 22, Vault 3), OR at the very least have an interesting back story behind them (REPCONN, Vault 11). The patrols, reports, and filtration parts do nothing to flesh out those locations: it is the locations that justify the presence of these.
What would the difference be with The Glow? One can visit The Glow without really needing to take the associated BOS quest. But unlike any of these locations I previously mentioned, The Glow is at least challenging and some people may decide to stay away as a result. Yet the BOS quest forces them to go there. There's nothing challenging about these other locations: if they pop up in my map, may as well go in and see what's inside. And that's pretty much what anyone does.
Bottomline is, your judgement of whether Still in the Dark is a series of fetch quests or not boils down to your subjective experience. Mine is "oh great, I'm sent to a place I already know of just to retrieve a random thing". For a first time playthrough, it's great. In repeat playthroughs, it's a drag. And that's because, as I said, it's just Obsidian wanting the player to experience as much content as possible.
Again: judging the quality of a fetch quest because it sends you to locations (you could discover on your own and which you are already sent to by other quests) where there are other quests to do seems dumb. Like saying any random Morrowind quest isn't boring because it probably takes me to a town with more quests.
(No point talking about how two out of the three dead patrols shouldn't have died considering their Power Armor; the only patrol to die a sensical death was that of Nellis. Again, contrast with The Glow, where the only dead BOS member died because his PA failed and thus overdose on radiation.)
All quests in all games are fetch quests.
People literally explained here why it would be plausible for Caesar to send someone he just met to the bunker (not wanting to send his own men to a likely trap), but it's easy to ignore those and just parrot the same crap over and over. And if you want to bring up the bullshit "but you can sabotage the Legion before getting to New Vegas and Caesar pardons you for everything", you literally got the main thing that will turn the tide of war. Of Caesar is gonna try to convince you to join him.
I can make an essay on all of the flaws of New Vegas, but the majority of the OP's and Biggumboi's "arguments" were absolutely retarded, specially because they flat out ignore information in the game that would debunk their criticism.
Posts in historically retarded topic.
There's no plausible explanation because the scenario is nonsensical.
I have to boil it down to the only "logical" argument:
"Caesar sends the Courier because they are experienced with technology".
But that's just explains why he sends the Courier, not why he only sends the Courier. It gets even worse if you know the Courier is someone who sabotaged your Legion every step of the way, and yet you decide to blindly trust their word when they say they destroyed the bunker. It's not even a matter of Caesar letting the Courier join him, it's a matter of Caesar thinking the Courier is absolutely true to his word and loyal to the Legion cause when he has no proof of that at all.
Then there's the "argument" put forth by the game, where Caesar claims he doesn't want his Legionnaires to see what technology is capable of... as if they didn't already know what technology is capable of to begin with.
The worst argument I've ever heard of is "this character is human and makes mistakes", which basically throws any possible discussion into the garbage when we can rationalize every retarded decision a given character makes with "they are hooman".
As I said, what happened here is clear as day: Obsidian sacrificed writing to let the player go on unhindered in their quest to join whatever faction they wanted.
Gonna be honest, I like Caesar but I always spare Benny unless it's a throwaway playthough. And if I spare Benny, then he gets to the camp before me and has the chip on him, he isn't a legionary yet Caesar waits for the courier to show up. The same courier who may have: Killed Vulpes in Nipton, massacred Cottonwood Cove, wiped the Legion out of Nelson, stopped the Legion ambush of Bitter Springs, made the Khans go independent, killed the Legion spy in McCarren and stopped the monorail from exploding, made peace between the NCR and the Kings, killed the rest of the Legion soldiers not from the fort, then nuked dry wells and killed the survivors. Then he talks about all of these crimes against his Legion that you have perpetrated, and makes a joke at your expense. He just gives you the platinum chip and expects you to go to weather station, then fins whatever is in there and destroy it, and then he rewards you with the death of Benny. And after you're done either destroying the generators or activating the assembly line, he just says "Ground shake, you shake ground? Ok Benny go bye now goood.", even though you've found every possible way to fuck him over up until now.
Again, he could've just used Benny to do what was needed, but no, I guess since you survived a shot to the head and met Mr House, you're the Legion's chosen one. Again, I like Caesar, and I like Fallout New Vegas, but I can really see where people are coming from when they say Caesar was being an idiot.
I like New Vegas too. The writing is not always great and can be quite cringy at times, and the gameplay simply sucks. But it's entertaining. Would have been much better as an isometric turn-based RPG with finished content, though. Picking Perks feels pointless when the game is easy and not even mods fix that without stripping away all RPG elements altogether (like making headshots OHKOs). Why bother with more Perception when it barely modifies how I play, or more AP when I don't even use VATS since it's such a basic win button.
It is almost like people with a brain tumor can have their rational thinking be affected drastically.
That's not a good argument, he's able to think rationally with every other decision he's made in the entire game. Caesar, if not for House, would be the smartest man in the game. Lore-wise not statistically, and it seems as though the brain tumor doesn't affect any other decision he's ever made, aside from telling the player to fuck off while he rests.
Or you could stop being a super nerd about it, nerd.
I guess I'm wrong
At this point it's a routine. Every like 6 months some rando with no pfp at all posts a long rant about actually how bad Fallout 2 and New Vegas is, and why we're bad for not praising Bethesda constantly for making Fallout 3, 4 ,and 76.
You really just have to ignore it because these people aren't really looking for a discussion on the topic, and are just morons from r/fallout looking to b8 people into a fight.
There likely are completely legitimate reasons why someone would like the Bethesda Fallouts more, (hell I have a ton of fun with them), but they aren't really looking for that.
It's like the Tom Cruise movie Point. Laugh. Repeat.