What RPG to play... choice of five.

Nedan on 24/1/2011 at 01:31

Nameless Voice, that was mainly referring to people that had recommended NV over F3... & not everyone in the thread as some people didn't even comment on F3.

As I said before, F3 wasn't a bad game. But It just wasn't a great game either. Comparing the two, NV is about a hundred times better... so far. But keep in mind that I haven't defeated the game yet so my opinion may change drastically if the ending is tacked on or cheap like a few other games in past that I have played.

gunsmoke on 24/1/2011 at 01:57

I dunno, New Vegas started out slow, got really good in the middle, and then proceeded to fall of of the fun cliff. I don't understand how anyone who so ravenously played Fallout 3 as I did (150 hours gobbling up every ounce of DLC along the way) could be anything but underwhelmed by NV. It is more of the same. And after 150 hours in the first game and 60 in NV, I gots better stuffs to do than play a round of deja vu.

steo on 24/1/2011 at 03:39

13 people currently voted for Digi to play NV before playing any of the others though - and he's already stated that he owns and plans to play all of them. If that's the case, then I would probably say play FO3 before NV, even though I think NV is a much better game, but then, I voted for Alpha Protocol...

icemann on 24/1/2011 at 05:59

I dunno how many hours I pumped into Fallout 3 (be beyond a months worth at the very least) but I loved New Vegas. The starts pretty damn average, but other than that it kicks butt. I'd still recommend playing Fallout 3 first though, as going from NV to F3 would be a bit of a let down. That said Fallout 3 had MUCH longer to get through locations (as in buildings, caves etc) and so that + the later DLC is better time for your money overall.

In NV the combat is more exciting but the game ends quicker. And theres no DLC yet. And the one DLC that is coming out for NV has been getting really bad reviews. I'll still get it though as I like to make my own opinion rather than relying on game review sites that seem to give a 9.somethin for every new game that comes out.

A major positive in Fallout 3's direction over New Vegas is that if you want to play the whole game solo style (which the game is a FUCKLOAD more fun doing imo) then your more than welcome to do that and the game wont punish you at all even on max difficulty. In comparison New Vegas very much punishes you for this approach and results in you getting completed slaughtered if you even go near certain areas on your own. As an example there was this one spot that I couldn't even get past 3 enemies (the place to the west of Primm with all the zombies till I got a companion to come along with me.

As I prefer playing solo that really annoyed me. I got used to it over time, but I'd have preferred to have played solo. Now before anyone says "you can play solo", sure after you get some really kickass weapons, but not till then for the hard areas. In comparison in Fallout 3 you could solo anywhere from the get go.

june gloom on 24/1/2011 at 06:09

New Vegas feels like a step in a different direction from where FO3 was. Where FO3 was basically Big Open World a la Oblivion- or, perhaps, Fallout 2- NV feels more constrained, a little tighter, a little smaller in scope- not too small, but reined in just enough to distinguish from the sheer insanity that was trying to cover everything in Fallout 3 in one go. I feel like you have more of a purpouse in New Vegas, and the game does a better job of sending you across the whole map (whereas FO3, with its huge fucking map, if you solely follow the main quest, has you traveling over mostly the southern portion of the map- the northernmost point you'll ever be at is Raven Rock, especially if you fast travel back back to the Purifier.)

Nameless Voice on 24/1/2011 at 09:46

Quote Posted by icemann

Now before anyone says "you can play solo", sure after you get some really kickass weapons, but not till then for the hard areas. In comparison in Fallout 3 you could solo anywhere from the get go.

In other words, Fallout 3 made everything easy enough that it was just possible for you at whatever level you were (idiotic levelling system), whereas Fallout NV actually has proper "difficult" areas which you can't just waltz into without being tough enough and carrying some heavy firepower.
As I've said before, give me areas too difficult for me over adjusting everything to my level any time.

icemann on 24/1/2011 at 12:40

Quote Posted by Nameless Voice

No. Having enemies at set levels in NV was fine (ie just to the north of the starting area having enemies far above the players level so you'd know not to go there). Having areas that if you only followed the main storyline would encounter and find that you'd need to go do sidequests just to be able to do, or get a companion is wrong. That's NV in some areas such as the one I mentioned.

If there's any singular thing I've loved about ALL the Fallout games (besides Tactics on PC) is that it offers you choices of play. Want to stealth and be a thief? sure go do that. Want to be a melee fighter or ninja? feel free. Consider yourself a Lone Wolf type and like to do things solo? Sure in any game other than New Vegas. Every Fallout game I've played until New Vegas (yes that's including Fallout 1 & 2) allowed for solo play if you so choose to do so and didn't punish you for that choice in gameplay path. In the earlier games its the best way to play if anything. But in NV case it punishes you for it. That I don't like. If I pump a month of my life into a game I want to be a complete badass by myself and not need companions by that stage. That's how I chose to play Fallout 3 and should have been able to in New Vegas.

Its a choice in play style that is catered for in PC rpgs all the way back to Ultima, Planescape Torment etc.

For the areas outside of the main questline though, that should be hard certainly. Though appropriate to the area difficulty.

Koki on 24/1/2011 at 13:31

C&C talk on TTLG, now that's good

steo on 24/1/2011 at 14:40

Bollocks are areas 'impossible' in NV without a companion. Of course fights without companions are harder - that makes complete sense! And fuck off are the other games just as easy to play solo - more guns and hit points in a fight will always make it easier. The companions in NV might be better than they were in other games, because they level properly (and if you're not on hardcore can't die), but that doesn't mean it's impossible to solo, just that you'll have to be a higher level/have better equipment to make up for the lack in manpower.

Go play Oblivion.

Jason Moyer on 24/1/2011 at 16:51

Even at the level cap and normal difficulty, cleaning out the Deathclaw cave wasn't a walk in the park. For whatever reason I found the reavers in FNV to be giant pussies compared to the ones in Broken Steel, though.

When I played FNV there was a bug that apparently caused the companion I was using to not level properly, so she ended up being unconscious pretty much constantly. I ended up ditching her and doing the vast majority of the game solo, except for the actual companion-related quests.