It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Musashi1596: But New Vegas is on an entirely different level. Most buggy game I think I have ever played, no idea how it was released in the state it was. And the patches made it worse somehow.
avatar
wolfman1911: I wonder if you ever played fallout 2? I ask because that was the game that I have dubbed buggiest ever. Mind you, I never used the fan patches until now, so that might be why I thought F2 was buggier than say Temple of Elemental Evil or Arcanum. I know on Fallout 2 if I tried killing someone using planted dynamite, it would cause a BSOD unless I was on another screen when it went off, and sometimes even if. I've never had any big problems with New Vegas though.
Well, if you look at the changelog of killap's unofficial F2 patch you can see how great bugfest Fallout 2 was even after official patches. But its bugs were less visible. TOEE on the other hand was utterly horrible bug ridden. Crashes, crashes everywhere. And corrupted saves, yay.
Didn't see any major bugs in New Vegas though. Only very rare crashes, but that's the crappy engine's fault.
I should probably point out I played 3 and New Vegas on the PS3, not the PC. Could well be far worse on the consoles, but I had constant trouble with New Vegas that was actually exacerbated by patches. After the first patch was released, just pressing R2 at any point would instantly cause a hard lockup, so it rendered VATS unusable until I deleted the patch, on top of regular freezing and incredible drops in framerate. But it also seems like people's experience of bugs in the game is quite inconsistent.
A new Fallout running on the Skyrim engine would be excellent. I went back to Fallout 3 a couple of days ago to finish the DLC off and it just feels so dated.
I had the Vats-related lockup with Fallout 3 on my PS3, so it definitely wasn't just New Vegas--and I had the problem with the original Fallout 3 without patches and the Game of The Year Version with all the extra content.
One thing puzzles me. Some people here seem to think, that Skyrim engine will be great & bugfree piece of software, and next Fallout must use it. How do you know Skyrim's engine is so great when the game didn't came out yet?
Post edited July 19, 2011 by WTF
avatar
WTF: One thing puzzles me. Some people here seem to think, that Skyrim engine will be great & bugfree piece of software, and next Fallout must use it. How do you know Skyrim's engine is so great when the game didn't came out yet?
Because It's NEW!!! And new = better duh.... oh and don't forget the shiny new graphics.... anything with 'better' graphics is automatically better and awesomezzz!!!!!!!
I didn't say anything about the new engine, mainly because I personally worry it will be buggy as fudge despite all these hopes otherwise.
Chances are it will be buggy. Most likely not to the catastrophic extent of the current engine but still likely to be buggy. However, the one thing I've taken about it from the recent Skyrim footage is that it looks good, damn good. And that's far more than the current engine can boast at the very least.
avatar
Musashi1596: Chances are it will be buggy. Most likely not to the catastrophic extent of the current engine but still likely to be buggy. However, the one thing I've taken about it from the recent Skyrim footage is that it looks good, damn good. And that's far more than the current engine can boast at the very least.
What's wrong with the current graphics that Oblivion/New Vegas/FO3 sport? They look good enough to me. Just because everybody else has bumped up graphics to needless levels it's now crap if they don't look just like that?
Having played 1+2+3+NV, I really feel like in many ways, the Fallout games are split into two separate series.

FO3 feels like a direct sequel to 1, with plot elements from 2 mixed in. The feel of the game, the atmosphere, the setting, just really hits the FO1 vibe for me. That's my favorite thing about 3, really. I enjoy it, but it makes me want to play Oblivion instead. FO1 is dark, gritty, and nasty. Nothing is clean and shiny and well-constructed. The closest things to a "clean" place were Adytum, which was a despotic warzone, and the Cathedral, which was only happy and pretty above the surface. FO1 also wasn't trying to be funny. There were a lot of moments of dark humor, but nothing that would really make you laugh out loud (except for the crashed alien ship which gets me every time). There were a few pop culture references, but they were mostly subdued and not glaringly obvious.

For FO2, however, a lot of the design staff had changed from the first game. In many ways, FO2 didn't really "feel" like Fallout to me, even though it LOOKED like Fallout. The main character, a backwater tribal, can easily master computer hacking at early levels despite growing up in a village hundreds of miles away from the nearest source of electricity. Many of the cities were clean, bright, and even had uniformed police! They looked like they were stuck in a pre-war time bubble or something! Civilization was back in full swing now, just with fewer resources. The pop culture references were rampant and jarring, and the game felt like it was trying to keep me amused, rather than appealing to my darker nature. It was an awesome game, but it almost felt like it was set in an alternate universe from the first.

As mentioned above, 3 FEELS more like a sequel to FO1, even if it plays like a totally different game. The quests are simpler and more linear for the most part, the combat and NPC interaction are very different, but the atmosphere is the same. It's after the end, and the Capital Wasteland hasn't really begun to rebuild like the West has done. The whole place is brown, practically everything is busted, everyone hates each other, just like the first game. It didn't really feel like a Fallout GAME, but it definitely felt like you were living in the Fallout world.

To me, NV just feels like FO2++. There's bright shiny cities, powerful armies, organized governments, lots more greenery, and the like. The plot and the quests were more complex than 3, but nowhere near as complex as 1 or 2. It felt (more) like one of the original games, but the setting and the atmosphere were all off. It's like all of the stuff that bothered me about FO2 (compared to FO1) turned up to eleven.

My two cents.
Your two cents are worth more than just those two pennies in my opinion. I definitely see the Fallout 1 and 3 link having now done Fallout 1 and played 3 as my "first" Fallout.
avatar
bevinator: Having played 1+2+3+NV, I really feel like in many ways, the Fallout games are split into two separate series.

FO3 feels like a direct sequel to 1, with plot elements from 2 mixed in. The feel of the game, the atmosphere, the setting, just really hits the FO1 vibe for me. That's my favorite thing about 3, really. I enjoy it, but it makes me want to play Oblivion instead. FO1 is dark, gritty, and nasty. Nothing is clean and shiny and well-constructed. The closest things to a "clean" place were Adytum, which was a despotic warzone, and the Cathedral, which was only happy and pretty above the surface. FO1 also wasn't trying to be funny. There were a lot of moments of dark humor, but nothing that would really make you laugh out loud (except for the crashed alien ship which gets me every time). There were a few pop culture references, but they were mostly subdued and not glaringly obvious.

For FO2, however, a lot of the design staff had changed from the first game. In many ways, FO2 didn't really "feel" like Fallout to me, even though it LOOKED like Fallout. The main character, a backwater tribal, can easily master computer hacking at early levels despite growing up in a village hundreds of miles away from the nearest source of electricity. Many of the cities were clean, bright, and even had uniformed police! They looked like they were stuck in a pre-war time bubble or something! Civilization was back in full swing now, just with fewer resources. The pop culture references were rampant and jarring, and the game felt like it was trying to keep me amused, rather than appealing to my darker nature. It was an awesome game, but it almost felt like it was set in an alternate universe from the first.

As mentioned above, 3 FEELS more like a sequel to FO1, even if it plays like a totally different game. The quests are simpler and more linear for the most part, the combat and NPC interaction are very different, but the atmosphere is the same. It's after the end, and the Capital Wasteland hasn't really begun to rebuild like the West has done. The whole place is brown, practically everything is busted, everyone hates each other, just like the first game. It didn't really feel like a Fallout GAME, but it definitely felt like you were living in the Fallout world.

To me, NV just feels like FO2++. There's bright shiny cities, powerful armies, organized governments, lots more greenery, and the like. The plot and the quests were more complex than 3, but nowhere near as complex as 1 or 2. It felt (more) like one of the original games, but the setting and the atmosphere were all off. It's like all of the stuff that bothered me about FO2 (compared to FO1) turned up to eleven.

My two cents.
Some things to consider... the time between the games is in terms of generations, not a few weeks or years. So it is only natural that as time went on the people cleaned up and rebuilt, and to make makes the most sense. That's where I think FO3 dropped to ball and failed to make sense at the very beginning... it takes place at least 200 years after the war and not one piece of rubble it seems has been picked up or anything.... that always bothered me about the game. Just look at pictures of present day Hiroshima or Nagasaki... granted we have resources and equipment we can use that isn't in the Fallout universe but still, something would have been done. No?.

SPOILERS:

Also about FO3 being a sequel to 1 with elements from 2.... to me I see it as a shoddy remake of 1 with elements of 2... I mean think about it. What the main plot of 1? You need to find something so that your people can have basically unlimited fresh water. Then there's this army of mutants.... gotta stop them.... Plot of 3? Stop the army of mutants and give fresh water to everyone. Okay you get some choices to make about those in 3 but still its the same premise. Oh and in 3 there are Enclave people, so there's your tie in with 2. I only realized this recently and it really makes me annoyed with the game more. They basically stole plot from 1 and 2 and threw it together in a shoddy fashion, with the most horribly conceived tutorial/opening segment ever.

But that's just me, feel free to disagree.... you'll be wrong of course but still feel free 0=)
avatar
Musashi1596: Chances are it will be buggy. Most likely not to the catastrophic extent of the current engine but still likely to be buggy. However, the one thing I've taken about it from the recent Skyrim footage is that it looks good, damn good. And that's far more than the current engine can boast at the very least.
avatar
Dhuraal: What's wrong with the current graphics that Oblivion/New Vegas/FO3 sport? They look good enough to me. Just because everybody else has bumped up graphics to needless levels it's now crap if they don't look just like that?
While there are far worse out there the graphics are hardly impressive. Character models are decent, but textures are generally pretty poor.. Especially when you consider how much they are recycled.
Of course, graphics don't make the game, but they can't really be said to be impressive in this engine. I genuinely prefer the graphics in Fallout 1 and 2. It's obviously not as technically impressive but I find them easier on the eye.
avatar
Dhuraal: What's wrong with the current graphics that Oblivion/New Vegas/FO3 sport? They look good enough to me. Just because everybody else has bumped up graphics to needless levels it's now crap if they don't look just like that?
avatar
Musashi1596: While there are far worse out there the graphics are hardly impressive. Character models are decent, but textures are generally pretty poor.. Especially when you consider how much they are recycled.
Of course, graphics don't make the game, but they can't really be said to be impressive in this engine. I genuinely prefer the graphics in Fallout 1 and 2. It's obviously not as technically impressive but I find them easier on the eye.
Two words: console cancer. To put it simple, all these games could (and still can if you download all those hires texture mods) look soooo much better, but crappy console specs couldn't handle it. I'm recently playing Oblivion with many texture replacements and it looks awesome. Hell, even old Morrowind can look awesome nowadays with all those mods out there.
On the other hand Bethesda promised higher resolution textures on pc version of Skyrim. And I don't believe them.
I'd have to disagree with that. Consoles can pull off some incredible graphics (Look at Uncharted for a great example) if the devs work at it, and Fallout is bad even in comparison to other console titles.
Speaking of "stupid dlc" a comment a couple pages ago, Old World Blues is actually quite good, worth the 10 bucks. Speaking of New Vegas being buggy, I have very minimal bugs.