[GRIMDARK] Fallout Equestria: Project Horizons Discussion

What about FO Brotherhood of Steel?

Sindri wrote:Yes. Four games. because Tactics does not exist and shall not be spoken of.

It does exist. It's even a somewhat fun game, in case you don't expect it to be an RPG.

Actually, it was my first exposure to Fallout. Just as my first exposure to My Little Pony has been Cupcakes. I'm weird like that.

jacky2734 wrote:What about ?

THIS POST
REMOVE OR EDIT IT NOW
WE WILL NOT SPEAK OF THAT 'OTHER' AGAIN.

jacky2734 wrote:What about {censored}

*METAL GEAR GAMEOVER SOUND*
Jacky?
Jacky!
JACKYYYY!!!

jacky2734 wrote:What about *BLAM*

Dammit Jacky, we don't need that kinda heresy here.

Valikdu wrote:It does exist. It's even a somewhat fun game, in case you don't expect it to be an RPG.

Actually, it was my first exposure to Fallout. Just as my first exposure to My Little Pony has been Cupcakes. I'm weird like that.

Well, it may be a decent game to some, but it's not Fallout. The lore is completely different, there is no RPG and there's barely a story... they made a wargame. With mechanics ripped from an RPG. And then the slapped a Fallout sticker on it to take advantage of the fanboys.

Can't you guys take a joke?

(But honestly, from what I've heard BoS wasn't that bad, and it was the first game to show up on console systems, so it is rather relevant, even if it isn't canon.)

jacky2734 wrote:Can't you guys take a joke?

We respond to jokes with jokes.

Frankly the only notable thing about it was that it was on console, and that isn't much of a plus. The gameplay was crap, the writing was nonexistant, and it was just all around a pretty shit game. And then some idiot slapped a Fallout sticker on it, thereby reducing the value of the whole series by a wide margin. Tactics was a beautifully made, well thought out, and source-failthful game in comparison.

I'm sorry, I should have clarified.

FO2 being the retarded little brother is not my opinion, just something I've heard.

FO3 is my favorite, because I experienced more depth, and did not experience crippling bugs, like I have with NV(As long as you STAY AWAY FROM THE ANTHILLS, I don't care how attractive that respawning Big Book Of Science is). NV seemed more restrictive,(Ex: Deathclaws between Vegas and Goodsprings.)and more bright and cheery. Maybe I don't like the cowboy aspects either, but that no fault. I also found artificial difficulty a problem, but maybe I just don't know where I'm supposed to be in relation to my character's levels. Point: Too restrictive. I can't bring myself to understand the need for DR, damage resistance worked fine.

This also manifests in the TES series. Oblivion had "massive bugs"? It did? No, it didn't. People say it does, but I've never seen them. Whilst with Skyrim, I got trapped in a dungeon because a door glitched, and the War storyline glitched up and became incompletable, and people I hear from say it has no bugs. Even though people say a newer game is better in every aspect, it usually doesn't stack up to its predecessors in originality, or maybe another field.

Of course not everyone has the same opinion, I am sorry if I've offended anyone.

I concur with the admiral, Somber has a great idea. Fallout 4 could use Skyrim's engine, because it is positively gorgeous.

Kippershy wrote:
And as for the other... eugh. let's just leave it there.
the "other" gets no more mention then "other".

Kippershy wrote:
And as for the other... eugh. let's just leave it there.
the "other" gets no more mention then "other".

Kippershy wrote:
And as for the other... eugh. let's just leave it there.
the "other" gets no more mention then "other".

Kippershy wrote:
And as for the other... eugh. let's just leave it there.
the "other" gets no more mention then "other".

Kippershy wrote:
And as for the other... eugh. let's just leave it there.
the "other" gets no more mention then "other".

But seriously though - seriously for a moment - seriously.
No.

Don't mention that... thing.



<3

Meleagridis wrote:

WavemasterRyx wrote:Wait, did Blackjack keep the moonstone with her? When I first read it I remember it being less ambiguous wording if she took it or just put it back in the display case. Cause with the starmetal sword... Either it'll be potential totally awesome, or it'll cook her insides like the display glass

Moonstone faded into motes, I think. She kept the metal instead.

Spoiler:

As I said, "put away" could be either in her pack, or back in the display case.

ketchup504 wrote: Fallout 2 has been called 'Fallout 1's retarded
little brother' because of inherent flaws, while 3 has been called the
'genius of the family'.

"Genius of the family?" I've mostly only heard it being called an "insult to the Fallout franchise". I suppose if I cared more about the storyline I might agree, but as it is, what makes me love Fallout 3 is the environmental aesthetics, something NV or the other games simply can't compare to (according to my taste, at least).

SilentCarto wrote:

WavemasterRyx wrote:Blackjack gnawing on his
armor and SR going "Help! She's gobbling my backside!"

*falls down giggling* I would pay real live money to see this.

It does sound like something Mech could do really well - though I think I'll give it a shot myself, later.

Sindri wrote:

Somber wrote:I would love to work on FO4.

This is a thing that needs to happen.

Agreed. So. Hard.

jacky2734 wrote:(But honestly, from what I've heard BoS wasn't that bad, and it was the first game to show up on console systems, so it is rather relevant, even if it isn't canon.)

I tried several times to write an answer for this post. I realised that I can't do it without insulting anyone.

So I'll try to write it somewhat neutral:

Consoles destroy every genre of games that was not meant to be played on them. Being the "first Fallout game on consoles" is not a good thing. It's sad.

Valikdu wrote:
Consoles are a cancer that erodes every genre of games that were not meant to be played on them. Being the "first Fallout game on consoles" is not a good thing. It's sad.

having never owned a console, I can't comment on the status of gaming on them, and from the few times I've used one at a friends house, it seems like a rather unintuitive control sceme but that's just from me never using a controler, but I can see why people like it, being able to flop on the couch instead of having to sit at a desk or table

[quote="Valikdu"]

jacky2734 wrote:(But honestly, from what I've heard BoS wasn't that bad, and it was the first game to show up on console systems, so it is rather
Consoles destroy every genre of games that was not meant to be played on them. Being the "first Fallout game on consoles" is not a good thing. It's sad.

It sounds mean, but I have to agree with you. Games are often severely dumbed down in order to be put on consoles.

WavemasterRyx wrote:
"Genius of the family?" I've mostly only heard it being called an "insult to the Fallout franchise". I suppose if I cared more about the storyline I might agree, but as it is, what makes me love Fallout 3 is the environmental aesthetics, something NV or the other games simply can't compare to (according to my taste, at least).

This is part of why I love fallout 3 more then the others.


Fallout 3 feels... destroyed.
Life is rough, most people are homeless or live in a shanty townhouse.
Clean water? forget it.

The D.C ruins? I would go for them over Vegas, any day of the week.



Fallout 3 felt post apocalyptic.
New vegas felt... civilised. too many settlements without any perimeter walls and the like.
Fallout 3 made it obvious that you needed that security in the world to have somewhere to live.


I don't know. I just liked the destroyed city and wasteland feel.

Kippershy wrote:

WavemasterRyx wrote:
"Genius of the family?" I've mostly only heard it being called an "insult to the Fallout franchise". I suppose if I cared more about the storyline I might agree, but as it is, what makes me love Fallout 3 is the environmental aesthetics, something NV or the other games simply can't compare to (according to my taste, at least).

This is part of why I love fallout 3 more then the others.

Fallout 3 felt post apocalyptic.

I loved this too, but if you think about it, it doesn't really make sense. Fallout 3 takes place 200 years after the bombs dropped, radiation should be gone by then. (just look at chernoble [or however you spell it] it's already mostly recovered.) 0In my head-cannon DC got nucked with some sort of super-nuke that had a much longer half-life.

Sindri wrote:Well, some games (okay fine, most) those days do skip out on story. Which is why I don't play most games. But decent rpgs, like the Fallouts, Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, etc. always do their best on that point.

Or, in the case of one of those, create a deep and immersive world, then cop out at the last possible moment and drive off in the Bullshitmobile. But I'm not naming any names.

ketchup504 wrote:FO2 being the retarded little brother is not my opinion, just something I've heard.

I have to admit that FO2 is my least favorite outside of NV. It was a little too in-jokey with stuff like Hubology and Skynet, and I felt that retconning all the Vaults into trololo experiments was really dumb. Kkat really rescued that aspect of the game by taking the angle of each experiment hoping to create a new society that wouldn't suffer from the flaws of the old one, along with a number of 'control' Stables that were indeed built purely for survival's sake.

ketchup504 wrote:Oblivion had "massive bugs"? It did? No, it didn't. People say it does, but I've never seen them. Whilst with Skyrim, I got trapped in a dungeon because a door glitched, and the War storyline glitched up and became incompletable, and people I hear from say it has no bugs.

Your personal anectdotes don't constitute proof. They're a single data point that has to be taken with everyone else's experience to draw any conclusions. I played through FO3 without suffering any serious bugs either, but that doesn't mean they're not there. This statement is akin to looking at ten of your friends and saying, "You all got flat tires from nails on I-30? But I just drove all up and down I-30 and my tires are fine. Therefore, the nails you hit do not exist."

The cowboy thing in NV, I think, is a matter of taste. I find that it clashes with the retrofuturistic used-world aesthetic you see for most of the game. It's fine when you're out in the wilderness, wandering up to Jacobstown or gunning down deathclaws at the mine, but it looks kinda goofy when you start delving abandoned vaults and rocket test sites. I almost wish the "weird west" sections were fissioned off into their own Deadlands-inspired game.

Kippershy wrote:Fallout 3 felt post apocalyptic. New vegas felt... civilised.

This.

WaffleSmart wrote:I loved this too, but if you think about it, it doesn't really make sense. Fallout 3 takes place 200 years after the bombs dropped, radiation should be gone by then. (just look at chernoble [or however you spell it] it's already mostly recovered.) 0In my head-cannon DC got nucked with some sort of super-nuke that had a much longer half-life.

The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is expected to remain unsuitable for any agricultural use for at least 200 years, and the reactor site itself will remain "hot" for 20,000 years. The lightly-irradiated outlying areas are indeed becoming safe, but those are the areas that were only barely bad enough to close off in the first place.

In FO3, DC was the site of multiple nuclear strikes. That's going to leave far more fallout than one reactor's steam explosion... And that's not even considering Fallout's "magic radiation".

Ketchup504 wrote:I got Fallout 3 GOTY for the PC for 20 bucks, even though I own it for the Xbox(bought for 50 way back when) with all the DLCs and never played it, and FO1 for free. I also have NV for Xbox, full price, with all DLCs. Fallout 2 has been called 'Fallout 1's retarded little brother' because of inherent flaws, while 3 has been called the 'genius of the family'.

Ah, well, actually, there's a lot of debate about that. A lot of people quite hate Fo3 while loving the older games. I can't properly comment on Fo3 due to having only an integrated GPU and not having yet been bothered to track down the hack that fixes that "feature", but the first two games are quite good in my opinion. There's also debate about which of the first two is best, but I'd actually side with the "Fo2 is best of the first two games" group there. Yes, the base game has a lot of flaws… but that's what the Restoration Project is for.

I've also got NV with all the DLC stuff, and I like it. Pity that the program itself is so incredibly unstable (though a lot of that may be due to the fact that it's being tricked into running on a Mac, it is still a game published by Bethesda).

Meleagridis wrote:
Moonstone faded into motes, I think. She kept the metal instead.

Nope, it's the other way round.

Meleagridis wrote:

ketchup504 wrote: Fallout 2 has been called 'Fallout 1's retarded little brother' because of inherent flaws, while 3 has been called the 'genius of the family'.

Never heard that. If it had been described as poor, I wouldn't be looking forward to trying it. I've heard FO2 described as 'The Best of it's Time and the Time After It' and FO1 as 'The Game Before Fallout 2'. What's so bad about it?

The original release of Fo2 had a lot of nasty bugs and dummied-out unfinished content. However, the GoG release includes patches that fix most of the bugs, and the fanmade Restoration Project fixes the rest, finishes and restores a lot of the dummied-out content, and even adds a bit of new stuff. It's still not perfect, but it's quite a nice improvement.

Meleagridis wrote:

RandomBlank wrote:More importantly, knowing the games opens a whole layer of experiences, when you recognize things ported from the games, references, similarities, opposites. And puns of course. I LOLd when I realized Tenpony is Tenpenny.

Cazadorables?
Alicorns instead of supermutants?
Fillydelphia as The Pitt?

Interestingly, FoE is far deeper than the games. Example: the aforementioned Andale, a small town, overly friendly, you find out they are cannibals, there's the crazy old guy, you confront them, the guy takes care of the kids. The end. Confront with the trio of bandits-Arbu-Steel Rangers, the backstory of two coffee shops, the aligator retreat, the old guy being affected by "Night Person" perk, the drama of LittlePip going Rampage...

Cazadorables?
Beyond just the homages with sprinkles (like Arbu), KKat made a lot of mixed references that were honestly fun to decipher. The most obvious one would be Red Eye, mish-mashing not only Lord Ashur's work ethic and President Eden's position and resources as Big Bad but even a little bit of one of The Master's henchman in FO1 (or so I'm told, I haven't made it that far in the game yet). It's also hard to forget about how she twisted the Outcast story from FO3 (and in a way that actually made more sense than the actual game!). These are just the obvious examples, there are bits scattered throughout the stories.
Lastly, a little nerdy side note: Granpa Rattle didn't have the Night Person perk, he had the Night Person trait. The trait version gives you the boost during the night time, but also gives you additional penalties in the night. Obscure Trivia! (Purely fanon, by the way)

Don't forget the Sky Bandit!

WavemasterRyx wrote:

Sindri wrote:

Somber wrote:I would love to work on FO4.

This is a thing that needs to happen.

Agreed. So. Hard.

:)

To be fair. The fact that the DC wastes in FO3 are so chaotic after 200 years while the West Coast is well on the way to recovery is somewhat justified.

Think about it. DC was the nation's capital, which means it would have been hit extra hard, thus explaining the areas that are still highly irradiated.

For the last two or three decades, the ruins have been a battlefield between the SM and the BoS, this means that nobody could really settle down in the ruins or refurbish the area because there was a good chance that would get killed.

Not much heavy scavenging took place because the factories and office buildings had ridiculously strict security systems. Raiders run amuck and there was at least one instance of a slaver army wiping out a known safe haven(the Rockopolis incident). The BoS had their hands full dealing with the SM(who weren't nearly as reasonable as their west coast counterparts), so they couldn't deal with said raiders and slavers.

The regulators were too small of a group to hunt down all of the wrong doers and had to settle with simply taking down the worst of the worst.

And to top it all off, there is actually a crazy rich psychopath paying people to keep the chaos going by having them killing good people and bringing him their ear(not to mention the fact that it's theorized that he's also the one who's paying Talon Company to spread as much chaos as possible).

@swicked (sleep)
Ayup, that's been an issue for me from time to time. Usually, if I'm hitting the sack at a semi-reasonable hour (11-3) I can fall to sleep peaceably (though not with alacrity) but if I'm going later/earlier, or if I can hear someone else making noise (can't sleep when other people are awake), or if I'm just in a mood, then yeah, I get the whole shebang of racing thoughts, constantly feeling uncomfortable, and annoyingly boundless energy.

Sometimes it's nice! If I'm feeling relatively happy when it happens, I can get a lot of thinking done.

@Somber-writing-FO4
Yes, please.

@The-Great-Fallout-Conversation-Of-Our-Time
I've not played far enough into FO1 or 2 to make judgments, but they both seem pretty fun so far. The CGI cutscenes are scary bad, but I'm used to that from Planescape: Torment and the like; and I do wish there were fewer skills and more traits (honestly, some of the skills seem a bit too specific - I can't believe a Wasteland doctor wouldn't also know first aid, for instance), but otherwise, yeah. Fun times!

Fallout 3 was the first Fallout game I played, and yeah - it had its issues. Not so much glitches, 'cos I waited until they did the GOTY thing and whatnot, but the serious lack of decent writing, voice acting, choices, and animation was a real detriment. Once I got the Wanderers Edition mod going, the gameplay was very fun, though. I liked the color scheme ("realistic" or no, gray-green made for some great atmosphere), I liked how unexplored and dangerous most places felt, and I liked how replay-able the game was... even if a lot of the quests were, uh, bad. It had a pretty great concept, but the execution was not so nice.

New Vegas' beginning bores the hell out of me. Let's just get that said up front. I do not care about the Powder Gangers. At all. They're not a threat to anyone with a 9mm and half a brain, but they're treated like a serious problem, and it'd be laughable if I didn't have to save two friggin' towns from them. One of which has a garrison of soldiers next to it - ONE soldier could clear Primm, easily. I did it with a varmint rifle, a 10mm pistol, and a Guns skill of 19. Without sneak attacks.

BUT, once you get past the beginning, and into New Vegas proper... it's still really boring. Okay, once you've LEFT New Vegas, things started getting interesting for me. Proper, dangerous NPC fights with either the Legion or the NCR (or both) and Fiends, interesting quests...

But, at the same time, I kinda wish it was different in a LOT of ways. Some people have already brought this up, and I'm definitely in the camp that didn't like how civilized everything felt. Wandering became really, really boring, because mountains and invisible walls seriously restricted where you could go and because the enemies you fought while wandering were generally limited to giant bugs and geckos (not of the adorable, eyeball-licking variety, sadly). Also, compared to 3's Capital Wasteland, the desert had very, very few buildings. Some of my favorite parts of 3 were the vertical gunfights in collapsed multi-story buildings with psychotic cannibals; in NV, there are caves with animals, and there is sand, and there are gas stations. This also made it feel less like a post-apocalyptic environment, since there weren't as many actual signs of the apocalypse. Apart from the giant bugs, most of New Vegas looks like the aftereffects of an economic collapse rather than a nuclear armageddon.

There are some other problems I had with it, but mostly I just felt that it wasn't nearly as intense or exciting as F3. It had some really great moments, and the Old World Blues DLC cracked me up, but New Vegas has just a bit too much slog for not nearly enough payoff. (Also, too many of the things you can do that SHOULD matter do not, *cough* *cough* killing Caesar and wiping out his entire forward base of operations... seriously, sometimes I wish there was a conversation option for the NCR bigwigs that said "Clear out, you lot... I got this.") It's still a great game, and I'd definitely recommend a playthrough, but... it doesn't follow-through with things.

This is relevant to this discussion. Metal is almost always relevant.

Night Crawler:

In case it's not...
Loyalty is a good thing. However, it can be misplaced. I used to love The Elder Scrolls series (namely, Morrowind), but then I took an arrow in the knee (sorry) tried to play Oblivion several times and couldn't because of the boredom. And because I was pissed off by the simplification and autoleveling. I don't think I'll go very far with Skyrim, either.
I finished FO3 once, it was kind of fun. I'm not planning on doing it again, though, unlike FO2 (have to check out that Restoration mod).
Kipper and Jacky, I know I'm probably not going to change your opinion if you like FO3 so much that you make a ton of excuses for it... but again, here's this chart. Pay special attention to the rightmost column.
I'm not saying that FO3 is a bad game, or even "below average" like in the chart. I just don't think it deserves your devotion for any other reason that it (in part) inspired Kkat to start up our favourite fanfiction universe.

@Somber-writing-FO4
Uhm...
-FO4 developed by Bethesda: no. They simply won't need a great writer, average will do it.
-FO4 developed by not Bethesda: unknown.
-Wasteland 3: Yes. YES.

Vallikdu wrote:have to check out that Restoration mod

The thread is here.

SilentCarto wrote:

ketchup504 wrote:Oblivion had "massive bugs"? It did? No, it didn't. People say it does, but I've never seen them. Whilst with Skyrim, I got trapped in a dungeon because a door glitched, and the War storyline glitched up and became incompletable, and people I hear from say it has no bugs.

Your personal anectdotes don't constitute proof. They're a single data point that has to be taken with everyone else's experience to draw any conclusions. I played through FO3 without suffering any serious bugs either, but that doesn't mean they're not there. This statement is akin to looking at ten of your friends and saying, "You all got flat tires from nails on I-30? But I just drove all up and down I-30 and my tires are fine. Therefore, the nails you hit do not exist."

The cowboy thing in NV, I think, is a matter of taste. I find that it clashes with the retrofuturistic used-world aesthetic you see for most of the game. It's fine when you're out in the wilderness, wandering up to Jacobstown or gunning down deathclaws at the mine, but it looks kinda goofy when you start delving abandoned vaults and rocket test sites. I almost wish the "weird west" sections were fissioned off into their own Deadlands-inspired game.

Oh, no. I really need to learn how to clarify things to people I can't talk to. I must look like some kind of illiterate, moronic teenager.

I don't deny they exist, but not experiencing them makes me think they don't. My personal experiences with Oblivion were almost entirely favorable. I had to go looking to get them. You are entirely correct about being a singular data point.

And yes, incredibly goofy.

ketchup504 wrote:NV seemed more restrictive...

I felt just the opposite. Sure there were areas that were very dangerous regardless of level, but that makes sense; there are going to be monsters you can't handle living some places, and you're warned to stay away from those unless you want to test yourself. It sure works better than F3's system where deathclaws don't exist at all until you hit a certain level, then they suddenly live all across the wasteland. Meanwhile scope-wise, F3 let you go anywhere, but there was only content along the course of the main quest and in a few tiny pockets elsewhere. In New Vegas, there are things to do and interesting people everywhere you look.

I can't bring myself to understand the need for DR, damage resistance worked fine.

It makes combat significantly more realistic. Instead of every attack getting through your armor, but being slowed down by the exact same amount, heavy armor will block lighter weapons almost entirely but be pierced by weapons that are either heavy enough or specially designed to get through it. Might not be required from a pure gaming perspective, but it adds to immersion and makes equipping and fighting more cerebral and tactical instead of just picking a favorite gun and pointing it at everything until it dies. And it's actually a system from the old games that F3 removed, so it's part of the general move back toward what made the originals great after the backlash by old fans against 3.

Oblivion had "massive bugs"?

Yeah, it really kinda did. significantly more than Morrowind, maybe less than F3, probably slightly more than a fully patched NV but nowhere near NV at launch. Can't compare to Skyrim because I haven't had time to play it extensively yet.

I concur with the admiral, Somber has a great idea. Fallout 4 could use Skyrim's engine, because it is positively gorgeous.

Total agreement from me.

WavemasterRyx wrote:[aesthetics]

Can't argue there. F1 felt like it was right after the apocalypse, and it was. People were learning how to survive, just barely starting to recover, etc. F2 the recovery that you saw in the first was well underway, but things were still broken.

F3 went to the capital, and because of higher radiation levels, super mutants, etc. it hadn't really rebuilt anything since the end of the world. It still felt, despite 200 years, like a post-apocalypse. But if you get down to thinking about it, that doesn't work. The food supply is all based around scavenging pre-war stuff, so what happens when that runs out? As it would have decades ago? If there aren't enough people (non-raiders) to fill a small town, where does the genetic diversity to survive come from? Rivet City is the largest in the Capital Wasteland at what, 50 people? Most of the "settlements" are what, two families? Even if they weren't getting killed every few weeks, they'd be gone within a century. The super mutants are immortal until killed, and can make more by dragging captives back to their Vault, but the BoS is killing them by the dozens every week. To replenish themselves they'd need to take an entire settlement every week, of the what, ten in existence? And they'd need everyone to survive the culling, which just isn't possible given the number of stray body parts strewn about everywhere they go. Alright, but only maybe 5% of the population is civilized, right? There are huge numbers of raiders everywhere, massively outnumbering any settlement you could find. But where do they come from? I killed thousands of them in my travels. They were always back in three days. You never see any pregnant raiders in the camps, so that's not it. Wastelanders and town dwellers could give up trying to live off salvage and farming and go raider, but we've established that there aren't enough of them to do anything. The Capital Wasteland is like the Hoof but worse in this respect; the casualty rates even without the PC killing their way across the country are several orders of magnitude higher than the birth rate could possibly be. The system doesn't work without massive immigration, and there's nowhere for those people to come from. Then you get to the food and weapon situations... nobody's making anything. You can fix a gun by taking apart another gun, or you can shoot it until it breaks, but either way there's one less gun in the Capital. Everybody needs to eat (except the PC for some reason, which really broke immersion when the whole point of the main quest is to produce water that serves no purpose), but the only reliable food supply is ruins full of monsters. And those get cleaned out once, and then never produce again. The laws of thermodynamics say that everybody starves in a few months in this system. It's got that nice "the world just ended" feel despite being two hundred years later, but it just doesn't work in a world that doesn't magically reset itself every three days to provide more guns, ammo, food, and people.

New Vegas, on the other hand, is the logical extension of the rebuilding we started in the first game and continued in the second. The salvaged food has pretty much run out, but they've started growing more. The guns are manufactured by weaponsmiths, and distributed on trade networks that make sense. The nation you saw building and growing a century ago has continued to expand, and run into its first problems with overextension and bureaucracy... just before meeting groups that started in other locations and did the same things different ways. The focus isn't on a struggle to survive just after everybody else was killed, it's on guiding humanity as we rebuild the world, which is the real problem that would come a few centuries after the collapse of the old civilizations.

In the end it's a struggle between basic logic and 'rule of cool'. Like a zombie apocalypse scenario that somehow kills 99% of humanity but leaves you as a big damn hero, it's cool to thing about. But it just won't happen. Two hundred years after the end of the world, humans will have either gone through two hundred years of rebuilding, or we'll all be dead. You can't stay as tiny groups of scavengers on the verge of death for that long.

SilentCarto wrote:Or, in the case of one of those, create a deep and immersive world, then cop out at the last possible moment and drive off in the Bullshitmobile. But I'm not naming any names.

Yeah... the ending of ME3 is like Fallout Tactics. Doesn't fit the genre, doesn't fit the lore, doesn't fit the characters, therefore never happened. And 97% of ME3 was absolutely beautiful.

SilentCarto wrote:The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is expected to remain unsuitable for any agricultural use for at least 200 years, and the reactor site itself will remain "hot" for 20,000 years.

Is that accounting for recent observations, or is it the predictions from right after it happened? Because they've found a new species of fungus growing in ground zero and eating the radiation, cleaning it up a lot faster and more effectively than our current technology could. And it might even be edible. So the "lifeless wastes" of F3 are still highly unlikely; either rad levels will be low enough to grow normal plants or new varieties will spring up that thrive there. It's becoming increasingly evident in studies on the insides of glaciers, deep sea vents, etc. that if there's oxygen and an energy source, there will be life.

And Fallout bombs are generally akin to those used in WWII, which were several orders of magnitude smaller and less radioactive than Chernobyl.

Valikdu wrote:this chart. Pay special attention to the rightmost column.

First line: 'this is not opinions, merely indisputable facts.'

First example: 'I hate the voice acting, and anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.'

Right column: 'Here, have some quotes with no context, and pretend that they represent the sum total of a person's personality and philosophy.'

Yeah, this chart has already lost all semblance of validity. If they were to, say, complain that there were very few voice actors, or that none of them are highly rated on whatever scale voice actors are judged by? That'd be a fact. (and it's a valid complaint that I have with Skyrim. Seriously, at least 1/3 of the female humanoids in the game are the exact same voice. Not even same actress, same bloody voice, like somebody forgot to tell her that these were supposed to be different people. You couldn't have spent some of your millions of development dollars on a dozen college kids on a soundstage for a day or two?)
But this is some butthurt fanboy trying to justify his whining.

swicked wrote:to be honest I haven't even tried NV beyond the tutorial. It reminded me too much of FO3 and I was just so very done with that.

I'd recommend giving NV a second look. The tutorial sucks and the mechanics are a lot like 3, but the story is completely different in pretty much every respect, and the writing is closer to the originals.

Interesting theories on the starmetal. Almost the polar opposites of mine, yet explaining the same observations validly, and thus causing me to THINK!

Do you wanna go back through and look at other theories on the subject (and the moon, and other things) now that the other chapter reactions aren't spoilers, or should I try to compile and reiterate them?

Already stated it before but I'll say it again. In my opinion, New Vegas > 3.
I know I'm different then most others people, but NV was able to draw me in more then what 3 did. It could have just been the whole "First Fallout game", but just the way I feel.

The complaint about how "the Mohavie was just empty while the Capital Wasteland was full" ? Yeah, D.C. was full, of burned out and busted buildings with next to nothing in them other then junk and maybe some ammo and caps. And there was way too many empty buildings compaired to the ones that had some kind of mystery or past to them. Out in the desert? If you found some place, there was something important about it, even if it didn't have a quick travel point.

NV also has the edge in that the companions where more fleshed out. Example? Fawks needed you to save him and if you did and had good karma he'd join you. We get some of his past but other then being an East Coast super mutant who still kept sane and went on to be a gatling laser wielding bullet sponge. Lily on the other hand was a Nightkin who still remembered living in a vault the day the super mutants came and took her. She keeps a recording of her grandchildren to help her remember them and only takes her medicine half the time. And it's up to you to decide if she goes on with her life with a cloudy mind, a clear one but forgetting her past, or turn into no better then a savage beast.

There's plenty more I could go on about, but one thing I love about NV that 3 doesn't have is the fact I can aim down the sights of my gun rather then forever stuck shooting at a general direction.

I'm not saying FV is a better then 3 in every aspect, just that it does more things right for me then 3 did. I still like 3, just I like NV more.

@ Somber working on Fallout 4

I would do any and everything I could to make this happen if it would mean a Fallout game based in the South. Call me egotistical but I would love to see post apocalyptic based in the South, mainly Georgia.
And Point Lookout doesn't count. Oh yes, being in a swamp with a bunch of stereotypical inbreed hicks that are evil and Conferderate hats everywhere is SOOOO the south.

Sindri wrote:

ketchup504 wrote:I can't bring myself to understand the need for DR, damage resistance worked fine.

It makes combat significantly more realistic. Instead of every attack getting through your armor, but being slowed down by the exact same amount, heavy armor will block lighter weapons almost entirely but be pierced by weapons that are either heavy enough or specially designed to get through it. Might not be required from a pure gaming perspective, but it adds to immersion and makes equipping and fighting more cerebral and tactical instead of just picking a favorite gun and pointing it at everything until it dies.

That's just it. The minigun will still kill everything, but some weapons won't work when you get them against anything your level. Some weapons, like the 45.Auto SMG, when used by NPCs, chews through power armor like it isn't there. But when I do decide to use it, if I don't run out of ammo immediately, I can't kill Legion Killsquads. In the most certainty, this is my opinion alone.

@Fallout-3-is-a-scourge-to-everything-and-is-terrible.
I don't understand. I love the game, but everyone here hates it. Because it had bad voice actors? Because it had glitches? Because you played NV first?

I see originality. I can't describe why I like it, and I don't want to convert everyone. I just want to give it a fair chance. And, when I look at NV, it beats the shit out of it. Even though NV is nice, Fallout 3 was newer, had a grittier atmosphere, and had a nice adventurous aspect. All my opinions, you guys obviously do not share them. Nor do I expect you to.

personally I prefer Fo3 to Fo:NV.
First thing i noticed was how linear Fo:NV was. from the very start it had you on a leash. you are stuck in good springs. you want to get to new vegas, you could care less about where ever the hell benny went, you just want to go to new vegas. cant go west because of the mountains so you head north...
NOPE. cazadors rape your ass an lay eggs in there... (reload from previous save)

Ok so i cant go north, maybe i can go around the cazador infested area? go east...
NOPE. several giant scorpions just waiting for you to make a move, and if you want to get around them still nope, deathclaws infest that godforsaken hole. (reload again)

Ok i guess i could go south and follow the quest...
oh hey look primm! Ncr guy says there are escaped criminals. why couldn't they clear it out themselves? oh, bureaucracy crap... ok i'll clear it out. done? ok they say to go south. but i really want to go to new vegas. go east...

ok apparently behind this dry lake there are more mountains(and even a few deathclaws)(reload)
ok south some more. ncr outpost. they tell me to go east now(yay!)

... some guy fighting over star bottle caps and a guy who won the lottery...

Oh hey look, crucified people, burnt houses and a bunch of guys in sports equipment and dresses, sounds inviting! ok now to go tell on them!

head east some more. ok mountains. head north(finally!)
hey look novac, SHUT UP BOON, continue north.
ok boulder city... i mean a couple of buildings called boulder city... ok back to heading north-ish(north west by now)

bored of walking.

YES IM AT THE GATES OF VEGAS! i mean im at the gates out outside of vegas. ok im at the gates of outside the gates of outside of vegas. ok now they want me to prove i have money. its a good thing all those gangers i killed had guns they werent using!

YES IM FINALLY IN VEGAS!
...
vegas sucks. only thing interesting are the half naked dancers and the robot guards. guess i'll go kill benny- oh wait he ran out the back door. :I

next thing i noticed was how small the map was compared to Fo3. first of all a good 3/7 of it is inaccessible because there are mountains in the way or you are not allowed to cross the hoover dam. second towns are more like buildings where people live together or a neighborhood. megaton was a town, big town was a town, hell, little lamplight was a town.

next was the dlcs. the only good nv dlcs were GRA(more guns lets me make my collection bigger) and old world blues(because it was funny as hell "FIRST WAS THE HEART! Uh - wait... I mean SECOND WAS THE HEART! Brain was first. THIRD WAS THE SPINE!"
"Down at the end of the hall is BALL storage. For jocks who like
BALLS, like RICHIE MARCUS. Do you hear me, Betsy? RICHIE likes BALLS.") and also the gear was interesting and fun. dead money was next to useless besides giving you a way to get 200 stimpaks every week or so, Honest hearts gave me the .45 auto submachine gun which is dead sexy. lonesome road is confusing because Ulysses is fucking retarded. loved the riot gear and the h&r nail gun though.

atmosphere. Fallout 3's atmosphere was excellent. Fallout 3 had the feel of a post apocalyptic wasteland. when people weren't in towns they were either captured by super mutants, scavengers with more guns than you can shake a stick at or raiders ready to fuck your day up. I remember always spamming vats just so i could make sure nothing snuck up on me. Meanwhile over in new vegas it doesnt have the feel of a post apocalyptic game. it feels like a survival-ish game with fallout tagged on it. you practically trip over anti material rifles, riot shotguns, and 12.7 smgs as soon as you level higher than 15. the most intense moment i had was standing on top of a tractor in the quarry and shooting deathclaws. NV is still a great game. but only for the game part.

Characters: I can personally sympathize with the character in 3. having grown up without a father, being willing to chase after an imaginary one appealed a little to me. meanwhile your character in NV gets shot in the head. already a good 99% of people(who can play the game) can't sympathize. 3 you pick up where your father left off(you don't have to do the work, you just have to be a face everyone else can hate/praise) Nv you become an unstoppable force that tears through towns killing whoever stands in your way on a half brained(HAAAAAAA) revenge mission.

I dunno. I guess in the end it comes down to opinions. and you know what they say about opinions.(they are like assholes, everyone has one)

you had me at 'Stygius is totally cute'

All this talk of the games makes me sad that my laptop is still being ping-ponged around the U.S. While I haven't played NV yet, I thought 3 was fun, until I got the ninja suit from Anchorage, light step and ninja run perks, and a whole lot of mines. Then I pretty much played the missions by screwing around with the enemies. Loved fellout mod, making it incredibly dark and terrifying. Only things I didn't like was the railroading of dumb parts of the story. Hated Tenpenny Tower quest enough to not finish it (this being a big deal for a 100% completionist), as well as MC's father's death. Oh come on! I'm wearing friggin power armor and these schmucks are supposedly dangerous? One tiny thing that would have been interesting would be if you spared Colonel Autemn , he would have passed you a vial of whatever he injected to survive the first radiation blast. /rant

Another thing I'd like to see if spin offs are involved would be a storyline in China, and respectfully, a FO:E PH spin off in Zebra lands. What would that be like?