/fallout/ - Fallout

>>334
Yeah, the NVfags ruined the board before it even got started.

Whatever. Go play your 5 quests in your ugly brown and green diarrhea wasteland.

>>337
but but my megaton and rivet city

>>337
>ugly brown

Yeah, compared to NV's much prettier brown, right?

Face it New Vegas fags, your game is good, but it didn't really improve over it's predecessor. It didn't add anything significant to the gameplay, the story wasn't as engaging, and more guns =/= better game. The factions system wasn't anything special either. I know that's what you NVfags like to talk about, but it was almost pointless. Regardless of what side you were on, nothing truly important changed in the game. The only real difference was what ending sequence you got, and a handful of unique missions became available depending on what faction you sided with. But at the end of the day it was all the same shit. If you sided with NCR, you would get those free items from them. But if you sided with the Legion, you just had a different character handing you the same free items. Or instead of the Brotherhood's free ammo box, you got the Legion's free ammo box, or the NCR's free ammo box, and so on. And you always had access to the Gun Runners, regardless of karma or faction. Again, nothing significant changed. Instead of this group of followers, you got that group of followers.

Basically, the faction system was superficial and borderline pointless. And so what about all the guns? You still only end up playing with the same 20-something weapons.

The best thing that could be said about NV over FO3 was the more true-to-canon lore. I can't knock that. But other than that, FO3 beats NV. FO3 "introduced" the new age of Fallout. NV just repeated what came out of FO3, except with a new color and a bunch of filler and padding to make the game seem bigger.

NVfags cry some more. Your game is good, but it ain't god-tier FO3.

>>341
And everyone talks so slow even retards like you can enjoy it

> NV was ok it added almost nothing to fallout 3 and I hope 4 does goes back.

>>413
What's FO3's excuse? "I'm sorry sir, we ran out of color, the best we can do is make everything an ugly grey." FO:NV had so much more vibrancy than FO3. It was way more pleasing to the eye than copy and pasted rubble.

>>575
>TTW
>Vurt's Floral Overhaul
>NMC textures
>Nevada Skies

Stock New Vegas was more vibrant, but not by much. Considering how good the games, especially FO3, can look with mods ~ I have to wonder who the fuck at Bethesda thought FO3 would look good dead and tinted green. The wasteland looks so much better overgrown with vegetation.

Even moreso with ENB, which is about the only thing only modders could impliment. Everything else is down to bad decisions by Bethesda.

>>580
Actually, speaking of mods, I feel that NV has a lot more options than 3. There was so much leeway that I felt that they actually made parts of the game mod friendly. Not only are there more options that add actual challenge or new companions, side quest, place where you can store your stuff, etc.; but there is also the fact that you can overhaul the atmosphere, music you can listen too, and make the NPCs feel like they are there. Not to mention that you don't need a fix so that you can even run it, like 3.

>>604
I disagree, kind of. Fallout 3 has much more potential for mods, if only because Bethesda fucked up or half-assed so much stuff that it kind of needs the extra work. The only problem is that NV has far more assets to work with, and NVSE is far more robust than FOSE, so making mods for NV is easier and you can do more with them.

>>334
The old games are old news. What about them hasn't already been discussed the hell out of already?

Now yes, I really enjoyed FO3. I think Bethesda makes good engines. VATS was fun because it wasn't quick-time events, it was based on skill points and weapons and sheer luck. It was fun to watch. I could always just not use it.

NV improved on that. NV improved on a lot of things. I think FO3 is, stylistically, the better game. I think both main plots sucked, true Bethesda style, but I think Vegas was way too rushed and buggy. Given another year or two, NV would be the better game, but as is I prefer FO3. But you know what I really DON'T prefer?

Hipsteresque whining and stirring up shit about muh ruined board. FO3 is good. FONV is good. They both have their weird quirks and shortcomings. I wish FONV had less FUBAR event scripting, and I wish FO3 didn't crash all the time. Yeah, I got the old games and I didn't really care for the "click a button to walk this way" gameplay. Now I know that was surely all stylistic and had nothing to do with coding time budget or developmental limitation and I'm a terrible plebiean for so much as question the original games…because, after all, it was all about the isometric look and the interface, not the lore or the world, and I know it's a sin for a fully-rendered 3D game with scenery and all to include less story and background content than one where they can just lay down some fresh pixels for each new area, but enough already. Enough of the elitism because you played THE ORIGINAL, and everything's gone soooo downhill since then.

You're not a "true" Fallout fan, you're a Fallout nostalgia-pusher. Bethesda owns the rights now. Bethesda Fallout is the real deal, the here and now, with all the things you hate about it.

I'd much rather take any amount of shit from morons pretending NV is 'true to the series' and that I'm somehow scum for thinking FO3 kicks ass than listen to more of your complaining about people liking new games. NV backslid some in my opinion, but it made lots of improvements. Reinventing the entire engine for each game in the series would just be stupid.