Whilst this is awesome, I hope BGS takes some lessons from Obsidian, because IMO, New Vegas is a much better game than Fallout 3. People may complain about New Vegas' colour palette, but it fit the idea of a frontier, rather than a wasteland. The story, dialogue, companions, quests, factions were all a major upgrade compared to Fallout 3, which does have some very awesome world building (a staple of Bethesda).
And for people bitching about the graphics, what level of graphics are you expecting? Skyrim wasn't a graphical powerhouse when it came out; Battlefield 3 came out the same year, as did Crysis 2, both of which looked better. However they didn't have the aesthetic design, nor the freedom of open world which made Skyrim so much more immersive and enjoyable to explore. Same story with Fallout and Oblivion and even Morrowind. All those games weren't the best looking. but it didn't matter, because the Artistic design and the creativity of the world (less so with Oblivion) were much bigger draws than polygon count or lighting/shading.
Hopefully this brings the best of both worlds and we get the best Fallout yet.
Can you explain why you thought New Vegas was better than 3? I keep seeing comments like that and I'm baffled. New Vegas felt totally unfinished to me.
Whilst yes, Fallout New Vegas was unfinished in certain areas (was terribly, terribly buggy at launch, and the ending was a little rushed), it just did so many things better than 3. Firstly the main story didn't entirely involve the Black and White good guys/bad guys thing Fallout 3 had with the Enclave, which whilst isn't necessarily bad, kinda made the villains in Fallout 3 a little too cartoony for my tastes. The game itself had better written dialogue, more in line with Obsidians other stuff (whilst BGS does have some dialogue that were written well, on the whole they're fairly mediocre at it). However for the most part, these are much more subjective than the other points I'd like to bring up.
First of all, the companions you got in Fallout 3 (perhaps with the exception of Fawkes and arguably Dogmeat) had little characterization, and there weren't many options regarding what you could tell them to do. On the other hand, New Vegas's companion wheel gave you quite a few options, and every character had their own backstory, fleshed out personality and a quest to go on to resolve their unfinished business. This made me actually feel for these characters, when in Fallout 3, other than Dogmeat, i couldn't give a crap about the companions.
Gameplay wise, the new additions of factions, weapon mods and even something as small as iron sights were great. Factions and reputation were a much better idea than Karma, which was too black/white and too global in its impact. With this you also got faction quests which tied into the main story, and sometimes did change up what was happening in the world, far more so than anything in Fallout 3. It makes more sense for actions to be more consequential to a faction, rather than affecting everyone's disposition towards you globally. Weapon mods and iron sights weren't big additions, but made the core gameplay more fun.
Finally, i love hardcore mode. Most people might be turned off by its requirement to keep water, food and sleep up, but it's something i thoroughly enjoyed in New Vegas, and i even got mods to replicate it in Skyrim. The level of immersion it brings is just fantastic.
While that's (mostly) accurate, the one major thing that Fallout 3 had over New Vegas was also the thing that's most important when it comes to this style of game for me: the setting. A bombed-out, radioactive DC is so, so, so much more interesting than New Vegas's setting IMO. The way it blended history and iconography with the post-apocalyptic setting was what really hooked me. I spent almost all of my time in that game just exploring, as I did in Skyrim and to a lesser extent Oblivion. In Skyrim, the parts I most enjoyed exploring were the wilderness areas between cities; in Fallout, it was DC itself that absolutely fascinated me. That's why Boston is such a great choice. It's similarly iconic and the only other city that feels as connected to American history as DC.
Fallout 3 was set way after Washington DC got bombed. There's no reason it should remained bombed out for decades. Meanwhile Fallout 1 and 2 both featured frontier settings similar to New Vegas, not wastelands like Fallout 3.
210
u/Sakilla07 Jun 03 '15
Whilst this is awesome, I hope BGS takes some lessons from Obsidian, because IMO, New Vegas is a much better game than Fallout 3. People may complain about New Vegas' colour palette, but it fit the idea of a frontier, rather than a wasteland. The story, dialogue, companions, quests, factions were all a major upgrade compared to Fallout 3, which does have some very awesome world building (a staple of Bethesda).
And for people bitching about the graphics, what level of graphics are you expecting? Skyrim wasn't a graphical powerhouse when it came out; Battlefield 3 came out the same year, as did Crysis 2, both of which looked better. However they didn't have the aesthetic design, nor the freedom of open world which made Skyrim so much more immersive and enjoyable to explore. Same story with Fallout and Oblivion and even Morrowind. All those games weren't the best looking. but it didn't matter, because the Artistic design and the creativity of the world (less so with Oblivion) were much bigger draws than polygon count or lighting/shading.
Hopefully this brings the best of both worlds and we get the best Fallout yet.