Official Codex Impressions of New Vegas

[Mangoose]

So is Fallout Tactics a better sequel than NV? Discuss.

 

[DalekFlay]

So is Fallout Tactics a better sequel than NV? Discuss.

It's turn-based so it must be!

 

[CrimHead]

Newsflash, console audience- games are about gameplay.

And that's why you idolize Fallout, right?

What makes Fallout great is the atmosphere, the music, the locations, the story, the setting, the writing, the characters, the hybrid post apocolyptic/retro sci fi theme. The combat is a very, VERY minute factor in the equation. Fallout was never about combat.

Go play some chess.

 

[Shannow]

So is Fallout Tactics a better sequel than NV? Discuss.

You guys are so binary.
NV is no sequel but a spin-off because it completely changed the gameplay of FO1 and FO2.
Tactics is no sequel because it lacks many parts of the gameplay.
NV with the Tactics engine would have been a sequel. Maintaining and improving most aspects of the original games instead of completely changing or removing critical aspects.

The example of WoW obviously not being a sequel to WC3 should have given you a hint.

Here another question:
Would the overall quality of NV and thus the enjoyment/non-enjoyment you derive thereof change in any way if it were labelled a sequel to FO1/2 instead of a spin-off?

 

[Topher]

WoW isn't even in the same genre as WC3 so of course it's not a sequel but I'm not sure the case for New Vegas not being a sequel is so cut and dry. I always saw Tactics as a spin-off because it was an entirely different story arc. In New Vegas they continued the story arc's about NCR and the various factions. Granted the main quests stories are unrelated but the worlds are the same and that wasn't quite the case in tactics.

All of the Castlevania games are in the same series and are not always sequels even though some of them are. When the series left it's side-scroller roots in SotN and became metroidvania did it loose the ability to be a sequel/prequel to the previous games? I don't think so.

Here another question:
Would the overall quality of NV and thus the enjoyment/non-enjoyment you derive thereof change in any way if it were labelled a sequel to FO1/2 instead of a spin-off?

No. I think that's just silly. It's a game. I can't imagine why I'd like it less just because it shares the same name as something else that is better. I might be a bit disappointed like in the case of Fallout 3 but the fact that Fallout 3 was a Fallout game didn't make it any better or worse.

 

[Shannow]

FO:NV isn't even in the same genre as FO so of course it's not a sequel ..

Aye, just what I said

 

[Topher]

FO:NV isn't even in the same genre as FO so of course it's not a sequel ..

Aye, just what I said

I'd say that they are both RPG's but I'm not quite sure myself. Fallout is clearly an RPG but New Vegas has more in common with Deus Ex which I always saw as a FPS with RPG elements. Defining genres is a mystery to me?!?

I'm just go to leave New Vegas as the sequel to Fallout 1 and 2 in my mind and keep Tactics and Fallout 3 as spin-offs because they didn't advance the arcs from the first two games in any way.

* I have a question as well. If somebody made a sequel to a FPS but it had nothing to do with the first game besides also being a FPS is it really a sequel simply because the gameplay is similar? Red Faction is what comes to mind here.

 

[Shannow]

* I have a question as well. If somebody made a sequel to a FPS but it had nothing to do with the first game besides also being a FPS is it really a sequel simply because the gameplay is similar? Red Faction is what comes to mind here.

Back to binary again, I see. This is why I usually don't bother to try to educate you guys. Two posts later everything is forgotten anyway...

 

[Topher]

* I have a question as well. If somebody made a sequel to a FPS but it had nothing to do with the first game besides also being a FPS is it really a sequel simply because the gameplay is similar? Red Faction is what comes to mind here.

Back to binary again, I see. This is why I usually don't bother to try to educate you guys. Two posts later everything is forgotten anyway...

What?

 

[treave]

From a literary aspect Topher is somewhat correct. Something that chronologically follows and continues the main arc of the plot is the sequel. You could have Fallout: Super Pinball Mania Extreme released in early 1998 that expands upon the story of how the Vault Dweller travelled and finally founded Arroyo, and it would be a plot sequel to Fallout.

But bear in mind that a video game is not just plot - gameplay is its defining aspect. And genre of gameplay can vary more in a less subtle fashion than genre in films, books or music.

Let's say, for a highly drastic example, Nolan releases the third Batman movie exclusively as an audiobook. Would you still consider it a sequel? Well, plot-wise yes. But it's not a sequel to Batman the movie.

Similarly, Fallout 3 is not a sequel not only because it does not follow the plot, but because it fails as a sequel to Fallout the game. In that aspect, it is more of a successor to Oblivion as a game - mechanics-wise, it is a sequel to The Elder Scrolls, with Fallout's name and lore slapped on it. To determine that Fallout 3 is not a sequel but New Vegas is, just because of plot, is hardly fitting.

Personally, I'd argue that the FEV is a lynchpin of the plot and any would-be sequel that does not feature the FEV in some marginally important way is not a sequel.

 

[gothfox]

FO3 was more of a franchise reboot, really. I have no idea why they even tried to keep some continuity with the older games. Should've just called it Fallout to begin with.

 

[Shannow]

* I have a question as well. If somebody made a sequel to a FPS but it had nothing to do with the first game besides also being a FPS is it really a sequel simply because the gameplay is similar? Red Faction is what comes to mind here.

Back to binary again, I see. This is why I usually don't bother to try to educate you guys. Two posts later everything is forgotten anyway...

What?

So is Fallout Tactics a better sequel than NV? Discuss.

You guys are so binary.
NV is no sequel but a spin-off because it completely changed the gameplay of FO1 and FO2.
Tactics is no sequel because it lacks many parts of the gameplay.
NV with the Tactics engine would [perhaps] have been a sequel. Maintaining and improving most aspects of the original games instead of completely changing or removing critical aspects.

Unless you're Final Fantasy a "true" (tm) video game sequel requires in order of impotance:
1. Similar gameplay (in RPGs: similar character (development) system)
2. Same setting
3. Similar art style, atmosphere, continuation of story and/or themes

And you just want to focus on points 2 and 3. Whenever it is pointed out that they are not enough (WoW/WC3 fulfills those) you switch into binary thinking and immediately come up with some strawman example that only fulfills point 1.

Why do I even try? Even if you "get" it now, you'll come up with the same strawmen two posts down...

 

[Crooked Bee]

Unless you're Final Fantasy a "true" (tm) video game sequel requires in order of impotance:
1. Similar gameplay

Does this mean DA2, being a slasher-RPG hybrid, won't qualify as a "true" sequel to DA:O? Or does this case fall rather under the "unless you're Final Fantasy" category? Just curious.

 

[treave]

Bringing up Final Fantasy is interesting - most of the few plot sequels that exist for the franchise are considered spin-offs because they are of a different genre.

Even the one direct sequel with the same style of gameplay is seen as a spin off (FFX-2) because it is not a proper, uh, numbered sequel, where every subsequent Final Fantasy game has little, if any, plot or setting links to the previous one.

 

[Topher]

And you just want to focus on points 2 and 3. Whenever it is pointed out that they are not enough (WoW/WC3 fulfills those) you switch into binary thinking and immediately come up with some strawman example that only fulfills point 1.

I was only bringing it up as a point of curiosity. To be honest I would say that you are right in most of your three criteria but that the gameplay between New Vegas a FPS with RPG elements and Fallout are closely enough related to qualify it as a sequel while the gameplay of WOW an MMO is too far removed form WC3 to earn that qualification. TO put it simply both New Vegas and Fallout at least come close to being in the same genre if they are not already while the same cannot be said for WOW and WC3.

You seem to be chalking up Fallouts gameplay as a one trick pony when combat is only a portion to be considered.

 

[DalekFlay]

From a literary aspect Topher is somewhat correct. Something that chronologically follows and continues the main arc of the plot is the sequel. You could have Fallout: Super Pinball Mania Extreme released in early 1998 that expands upon the story of how the Vault Dweller travelled and finally founded Arroyo, and it would be a plot sequel to Fallout.

But bear in mind that a video game is not just plot - gameplay is its defining aspect. And genre of gameplay can vary more in a less subtle fashion than genre in films, books or music.

Let's say, for a highly drastic example, Nolan releases the third Batman movie exclusively as an audiobook. Would you still consider it a sequel? Well, plot-wise yes. But it's not a sequel to Batman the movie.

Similarly, Fallout 3 is not a sequel not only because it does not follow the plot, but because it fails as a sequel to Fallout the game. In that aspect, it is more of a successor to Oblivion as a game - mechanics-wise, it is a sequel to The Elder Scrolls, with Fallout's name and lore slapped on it. To determine that Fallout 3 is not a sequel but New Vegas is, just because of plot, is hardly fitting. .

New Vegas has a lot of gameplay similarities as well though, on top of the obvious storyline continuations and thematic progression. Yes it's 3D and yes it's real-time, but the dialogue, quest structure and, much more so in New Vegas than Fallout 3, the world design is a lot like the original two games.

Maybe I'm just Mr. Open-Minded, but I look at it as much sillier to define a game based on the one thing it isn't (turn-based isometric) rather than all the things it is.

 

[treave]

From a literary aspect Topher is somewhat correct. Something that chronologically follows and continues the main arc of the plot is the sequel. You could have Fallout: Super Pinball Mania Extreme released in early 1998 that expands upon the story of how the Vault Dweller travelled and finally founded Arroyo, and it would be a plot sequel to Fallout.

But bear in mind that a video game is not just plot - gameplay is its defining aspect. And genre of gameplay can vary more in a less subtle fashion than genre in films, books or music.

Let's say, for a highly drastic example, Nolan releases the third Batman movie exclusively as an audiobook. Would you still consider it a sequel? Well, plot-wise yes. But it's not a sequel to Batman the movie.

Similarly, Fallout 3 is not a sequel not only because it does not follow the plot, but because it fails as a sequel to Fallout the game. In that aspect, it is more of a successor to Oblivion as a game - mechanics-wise, it is a sequel to The Elder Scrolls, with Fallout's name and lore slapped on it. To determine that Fallout 3 is not a sequel but New Vegas is, just because of plot, is hardly fitting. .

New Vegas has a lot of gameplay similarities as well though, on top of the obvious storyline continuations and thematic progression. Yes it's 3D and yes it's real-time, but the dialogue, quest structure and, much more so in New Vegas than Fallout 3, the world design is a lot like the original two games.

Maybe I'm just Mr. Open-Minded, but I look at it as much sillier to define a game based on the one thing it isn't (turn-based isometric) rather than all the things it is.

Hm... agreed on the world setting and structure, but I disagree that turn-based isometric isn't important. Point is, it's not like the technology to make an FPS RPG wasn't there back in 1997. That Cain and co selected to use an isometric viewpoint, to me, says something about the overall design of the game that they desired. I'd say to serve as a full sequel a game should at least embrace all aspects of their predecessor's design. I mean, let's go back to Fallout Pinball Super Wasteland Extreme Edition - if it had C&C and quests and dialogue penned by old Black Isle themselves, would it still be considered a sequel or a spin-off?

I'd actually prefer to view all these games as instalments of a franchise, ala Final Fantasy, rather than pigeon hole them into sequel/spin-offs.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Fucking LARPers.

 

[Kz3r0]

[


Maybe I'm just Mr. Open-Minded, but I look at it as much sillier to define a game based on the one thing it isn't (turn-based isometric) rather than all the things it is.

Turn-based isometric determines your combat strategy and party development , as is now you have the most lame implementation of a retarded tactical shooter.

 

[Shannow]

You seem to be chalking up Fallouts gameplay as a one trick pony when combat is only a portion to be considered.

Not really. You seem to put an action game into the same genre as a non-action game
In fact, as far as dialogue, quest and (partly) exploration gameplay are concerned NV is closer to the originals than Tactics, which doesn't change the fact that overall gameplay and genre is still completely different. It's like telling me that I'm using a one-trick pony whenever I point out that a book cannot be considered a "true"(tm) sequel to a movie because it's a completely different medium.
Nobody at Obsidian is claiming that it's a sequel, it's completely irrelevant to the game itself if it's a sequel or not and it's a completely different genre than the originals but if it pleases you to call it the long awaited "true" sequel to FO1/2 then sure, go ahead. Don't really see why we're even having this discussion...

Does this mean DA2, being a slasher-RPG hybrid, won't qualify as a "true" sequel to DA:O?

Since it's the same gameplay as before on the PC and everything else stays similar anyway, the question is moot. But lets say they actually changed to slasher gameplay: Would somebody who played DA:O and liked it get more of what he wants? Would he get something that's very close to what he expects? Would any of the points I established be considerably not met?
Not having played DA2 and not intending to (since I assume I'd get more of the first and worse, yuck) it impossible to answer. But the change from same graphics, RT, click once to attack and click special abilities once in a while
to
same graphics, RT, click several times to attack and click special abilities once in a while
isn't as big a jump as
2D, iso, TB, overland travel, action points
to
3D, RT, manual + quick travel, FPS + god mode, + different creatures, character system, balancing, items, etc.

 

[RK47]

Content wise. The territory of New Vegas is a little bit overloaded.. The whole Vegas area comprise of the strip itself, west side, freeside, and even the damn sharecroppers farms. I was totally shocked when I got out of the Deathclaw zone north as a shortcut for the main plot, from a distance, the lighted up Casino 38 looks so close, but the goddamn Fiend territory is so big and I ended up in another NCR HQ questing before I get to Freeside, then enter the Strip.

Then the dreaded backtrack quests begins. Silver Rush long trek back to Camp Mojave. Crimson Caravan back to Mojave. I don't mind trekking if there's something interesting to do in between trips. But there isn't, so quick travel is a welcome relief here and I don't feel guilty skipping trips at all. It bored me when I trek so much. Maybe I need to download survival mods to wilderness a bit tougher, but default game, once you got a decent rifle, things stop being a challenge.

Also, finished the game. I was surprised they scripted the Dam battle that way, it felt so rushed. Can't have everything I guess.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Does this mean DA2, being a slasher-RPG hybrid, won't qualify as a "true" sequel to DA:O?

Since it's the same gameplay as before on the PC and everything else stays similar anyway, the question is moot.

Oh I didn't know that, actually. So they've decided to change the gameplay for consoles but not for the PC? Trying to sit on both sides, eh?

But lets say they actually changed to slasher gameplay, etc.

OK, thanks for the clarification. And yes, I tend to agree that the supposed jump isn't as big as the FO->NV one.

 

[DalekFlay]

Does this mean DA2, being a slasher-RPG hybrid, won't qualify as a "true" sequel to DA:O?

Since it's the same gameplay as before on the PC and everything else stays similar anyway, the question is moot.

Oh I didn't know that, actually. So they've decided to change the gameplay for consoles but not for the PC? Trying to sit on both sides, eh?

Supposedly... I can't imagine it will be that different, can you see corporate EA bosses approving that? They keep saying that though.

 

[DalekFlay]

Hm... agreed on the world setting and structure, but I disagree that turn-based isometric isn't important. Point is, it's not like the technology to make an FPS RPG wasn't there back in 1997. That Cain and co selected to use an isometric viewpoint, to me, says something about the overall design of the game that they desired.

I'm not saying turn-based combat was irrelevant or the isometric perspective was irrelevant, those were core game concepts. I'm just saying the story, world and characters were also core game elements.

New Vegas is a direct continuation from Fallout 2, how about we put it that way?

 

[Secretninja]

Based on the arguments provided, one could conclude:

Army of Darkness is not a sequel to Evil Dead.

Watching a dot move across a map is more interesting than opening a pipboy and clicking on a location, or walking yourself and exploring locations in between.