Re: [Official!] Project Horizons Comment Crew Chat thread.

[Frost]

.......Why? You could get a Mountain Dew in a different state in that timeframe.

[Moodyman90]

They doing a new spacial promotion flavor? Like they found a justifiable reason to bring back Gamer Fuel again?

[RoboRed]

Mmm...gamer fuel...

[brony all alone]

nah ta football game waited 2 hrs. out of muountain dew. had to get a dumd cocacola

[Frost]

I've honestly got no idea what you just said, BAA

[Moodyman90]

He's on his phone, at a football game, they ran out of Mountain Dew, and he insulted Coca-Cola.

Least that's what I gathered. Could be code and I'm wrong.

[brony all alone]

nah u rite. were winning 14-12. i think dont know who dafuq were against. our school just had a merger

[cb5]

Oh shit, NASA's got something big to announce sunday.
http://www.rememberthe13th.com/

My money is on they found live on mars, cause there was a inconclusive positive a while back with the mars rover and they were going to do further tests to check it, not to mention that they have conclusively found water on mars. Also the fact that it's tagged, "marscuriousity".

[Harmony Ltd.]

The long time fans and more hardcore fans of fallout didn't really like new vegas that much.  The problem people had with it and why it's not as popular is the same reason what I said, the story telling in new vegas isn't as good as fallout 3.

I've been into Fallout since Fallout 2 came out in 1998, and I find New Vegas to be a superior game compared to Fallout 3 on both the accounts of gameplay and story-telling.

Why do I find the story-tellling better ? Well, for starter the fact that you aren't railroaded into the "story" the developers want you to follow as much as you are free to follow the story you create from the actions of your character. The background and setting is also far more believable and self-consistent : the Mojave feels more alive than Capital Wasteland, in that it feels like things happen there for a reason, instead of just happening because reasons.

You find the story-telling inferior because you don't feel you have enough control over the ending ? I'm not quite sure that's a valid criticism regarding story-telling, to be honest with you.

[Harmony Ltd.]

The problem with new vegas though is that it's not one central story, it's a set of stories with no real payout of your choices.  The problem is that it has story story telling adhd and yeah there is no definitive good and bad guys, I would have liked it better if the story had any sort of focus on the central story.  While yes fallout 3's story is more linear it is more focused on immersion than "oh look at the shiny new story arc".  Fallout New Vegas' actual title should have been, "Fallout the story filler"

Tl:dr; The problem with new vegas is that 95% of the story is filler arcs.

Old World Blues was mainly fillers with next to no actual plot.

New vegas' central story only has like five hours of gameplay.

...

 

[cb5]

You find the story-telling inferior because you don't feel you have enough control over the ending ? I'm not quite sure that's a valid criticism regarding story-telling, to be honest with you.

What about how with the brotherhood and the ability to choose to replace their leader only has a effect at the near fucking end of the game?  That would like if playing deus ex human revolution and how you can choose what ending you got instead you had to choose at the very beginning of the game and there was no payoff until near the end?

The gameplay is fine, rather they needed to do serious reworking on the story to actually have direct consequences of your action.  People keep saying that the lonesome road dlc was supposed to be endgame dlc, but I beat it before I even got to nipton.

If you really don't get my point is that the problem with new vegas is that you HAVE to do ALL the quests in the order the developers intended or else the storyline becomes a bunch of incoherent jibberish.

[Frost]

You find the story-telling inferior because you don't feel you have enough control over the ending ? I'm not quite sure that's a valid criticism regarding story-telling, to be honest with you.

What about how with the brotherhood and the ability to choose to replace their leader only has a effect at the near fucking end of the game?  That would like if playing deus ex human revolution and how you can choose what ending you got instead you had to choose at the very beginning of the game and there was no payoff until near the end?

Atrocious grammar aside, I still have little idea what you're talking about. The Brotherhood are small-fry in the grand scheme of NV, and their quests can be done fairly easily. Whether you replace their leader or not, its effects on the Wasteland (sensibly) aren't really seen until after the Second Battle of Hoover Dam. Many faction quests, in fact, involve shaping the faction/tribe's future--the future, not the present. It's like electing a new President and expecting all of America's problems to be fixed the next day.

[Harmony Ltd.]

What about how with the brotherhood and the ability to choose to replace their leader only has a effect at the near fucking end of the game?  That would like if playing deus ex human revolution and how you can choose what ending you got instead you had to choose at the very beginning of the game and there was no payoff until near the end?

Can you rephrase this, please ? My reading comprehension fails me, there, as I don't understand what you are talking about.

If you really don't get my point is that the problem with new vegas is that you HAVE to do ALL the quests in the order the developers intended or else the storyline becomes a bunch of incoherent jibberish.

Wrong. I rarely do even half the quests in the game during a playthrough of New Vegas, and I don't see any incohenrence in the plotline. In fact, it's trying to go for 100% completion in a single game that leads to the game becoming incoherent, in my opinion.

[Frost]

As entertaining as old world blues was, I'm not sure where this fanaticism comes from :P

I think it's from (correct me if I'm wrong, folks) people who really get into the retro-future aspect of the setting. Old World Blues is heavy on the crazy, '50's-sci-fi-style Science! and was thus fittingly full of off-the-cuff humor and neat-o gadgets.

Personally, I really liked Honest Hearts. Interesting environment, cool backstory and a focus not seen often in the Fallout games (the Tribals, for all their supposed prevalence in much of the world, don't show up in 3, rarely factor into NV, and rapidly fade out of 2, from what I'm lead to believe) Plus, some of the perks and survival-based stuff came from Honest Hearts.

[cb5]

Wrong. I rarely do even half the quests in the game during a playthrough of New Vegas, and I don't see any incohenrence in the plotline. In fact, it's trying to go for 100% completion in a single game that leads to the game becoming incoherent, in my opinion.

As a completionist, that is pretty true that when you try to go for 100% that does happen.  However the reason why that is for some reason game devs don't ever think someone actually wants to try to complete the game entirely and believe everyone will just go through multiple playthroughs to get everything.  The reason why new vegas becomes incoherent is that the more you play the game in a single run it starts to show big problems with it.  What I mean by that is try to complete ALL of the side quests and optional quests before the main story and you'll see how rapidly the story goes down the toilet.

Tl:dr; if you play all the side quests and optional quests in new vegas the main story becomes jibberish, if you play all of them in fallout three before the main story though the main story is still intact.

I think it's from (correct me if I'm wrong, folks) people who really get into the retro-future aspect of the setting. Old World Blues is heavy on the crazy, '50's-sci-fi-style Science! and was thus fittingly full of off-the-cuff humor and neat-o gadgets.

Personally, I really liked Honest Hearts. Interesting environment, cool backstory and a focus not seen often in the Fallout games (the Tribals, for all their supposed prevalence in much of the world, don't show up in 3, rarely factor into NV, and rapidly fade out of 2, from what I'm lead to believe) Plus, some of the perks and survival-based stuff came from Honest Hearts.

Honest hearts was probably the best of the dlc, cause when you break it down it was about a person seeking redemption.

[Scyto Harmony]

*Clears throat* That's probably the best part of Fallout 3. That you have no control over the ending.

In some games, fine, multiple endings is great. But the Fallout series has a heavy basis on it's Lore, and multiple endings super fucks up the Lore. Fallout 3's world was better, and the story was better. 

Now, the secondary Fallout NV story, the one across the DLC's, is what the main story for NV should have been.

[Frost]

Wrong. I rarely do even half the quests in the game during a playthrough of New Vegas, and I don't see any incohenrence in the plotline. In fact, it's trying to go for 100% completion in a single game that leads to the game becoming incoherent, in my opinion.

As a completionist, that is pretty true that when you try to go for 100% that does happen.  However the reason why that is for some reason game devs don't ever think someone actually wants to try to complete the game entirely and believe everyone will just go through multiple playthroughs to get everything.  The reason why new vegas becomes incoherent is that the more you play the game in a single run it starts to show big problems with it.  What I mean by that is try to complete ALL of the side quests and optional quests before the main story and you'll see how rapidly the story goes down the toilet.

Tl:dr; if you play all the side quests and optional quests in new vegas the main story becomes jibberish, if you play all of them in fallout three though the main story is still intact.

You realize, of course, that you just reversed your position and are still claiming to be right?

[Harmony Ltd.]

Dude, what the fuck ?

Can't you comprehend why this is a thing ?

Here, let me clue you :

You're playing for the NCR, and you're starting to do quests for the Legion. Or the reverse, you're playing for the Legion and start doing quests for the NCR.

And then you complain the story become incoherent ?

I recommend a sanity check.

[cb5]

You realize, of course, that you just reversed your position and are still claiming to be right?

You do realize that your choices in new vegas don't actually matter unless you actually play all the optional missions and such therefore if you actually play the story how devs wanted it's still a incoherent mess, but the problem with that is that if you want to just play the main story then all those potential choices are void?

The paradox in a nutshel:
If you play the entire game the game's story becomes jibberish, but you have to play the entire game to get a ending 100% the way you want.

Options:
Play the entire game and have a jibberish story
Play only a little of the game and wind up with the ending you didn't want

Tl:dr; the problem with open world games is that if you just dump a bunch of nonconnecting stories into a game it's going to start breaking down story wise if they don't play it 100% how you want them to.

[Frost]

Now, the secondary Fallout NV story, the one across the DLC's, is what the main story for NV should have been.

I will admit that the scheming by Ulysses and the journey of the Courier across the most hellish places the Wasteland has to offer would have, had they been focused on entirely, made a pretty awesome standalone game. One focusing more on a smaller, core cast of characters and on the relationship between Ulysses and the Courier. The consequences of the Courier's choices in such a smaller, more personally focused story would have been more immediate than the ones made in the Mojave. One of the bigger, glaring incongruities in the story--how absurdly powerful both the Courier and Ulysses are by the time they meet--wouldn't be an issue. In such a game, the Courier wouldn't be drowning in ammo and healing items by that time. No high-tech armor or superweapons--just a (wo)man that fought tooth-and-nail through Hell, meeting a man molded by it.

[cb5]

Now, the secondary Fallout NV story, the one across the DLC's, is what the main story for NV should have been.

I will admit that the scheming by Ulysses and the journey of the Courier across the most hellish places the Wasteland has to offer would have, had they been focused on entirely, made a pretty awesome standalone game. One focusing more on a smaller, core cast of characters and on the relationship between Ulysses and the Courier. The consequences of the Courier's choices in such a smaller, more personally focused story would have been more immediate than the ones made in the Mojave. One of the bigger, glaring incongruities in the story--how absurdly powerful both the Courier and Ulysses are by the time they meet--wouldn't be an issue. In such a game, the Courier wouldn't be drowning in ammo and healing items by that time. No high-tech armor or superweapons--just a (wo)man that fought tooth-and-nail through Hell, meeting a man molded by it.

That would have been a awesome game.

[Frost]

Dude, what the fuck ?

Can't you comprehend why this is a thing ?

Here, let me clue you :

You're playing for the NCR, and you're starting to do quests for the Legion. Or the reverse, you're playing for the Legion and start doing quests for the NCR.

And then you complain the story become incoherent ?

I recommend a sanity check.

This, exactly.

Maybe you're used to the railroading of 3, but I would recommend actually paying attention before blindly forging ahead in all missions. This is the sort of game where you pick one of the main threads and follow it, while still having most or all of the side-quests to do along the way. If you're flitting from faction to faction, undoing actions you yourself helped accomplish, then, yes, things are going to be about as clear as mud.

[Harmony Ltd.]

You do realize that your choices in new vegas don't actually matter unless you actually play all the optional missions

I don't think we have played the same game...

Play the entire game and have a jibberish story

Please elaborate what you mean by "gibberish"

Play only a little of the game and wind up with the ending you didn't want

This statement is both sad and comical. In which proportions I am unsure.

[brony all alone]

emotional breakdowns arent fun. i learned that during football game. some random kid was in my face tellin me to go kill myself. before the monitors could get down there he punched me. sooooo...... i kicked his genitalia. and his head. i think he lost a tooth. self defense amirite?

[cb5]

This, exactly.

Maybe you're used to the railroading of 3, but I would recommend actually paying attention before blindly forging ahead in all missions. This is the sort of game where you pick one of the main threads and follow it, while still having most or all of the side-quests to do along the way. If you're flitting from faction to faction, undoing actions you yourself helped accomplish, then, yes, things are going to be about as clear as mud.

And if someone starts trying to xp grind by using optional quests not in the order they were given?

[Frost]

And if someone starts trying to xp grind by using optional quests not in the order they were given?

.........Then you're doing optional quests, out of order. I've never, ever had a problem with that, and I've got no idea what yours is.

[Harmony Ltd.]

Maybe it has something to do with how bent out of shape he is about OMG CANON, and generally doing things as linearly and predictably as possible ?

[Harmony Ltd.]

I mean, playing an open world RPG and basically complaining about having the freedom to play the game the way you want, but having to assume the consequences of your acts and choices, that's kinda insane no matter how you try to put it.

[cb5]

And if someone starts trying to xp grind by using optional quests not in the order they were given?

.........Then you're doing optional quests, out of order. I've never, ever had a problem with that, and I've got no idea what yours is.

Exactly if someone is a xp grinder then there goes the story.  If you start trying to grind xp by doing quests in areas the main story hasn't gone to yet they start referencing things that haven't happened yet.  Not little things either, I started having npc's go, "I heard caesar's dead.  What an asshole" before I even killed caesar, and people talking about offing benny before I even killed him.

[Harmony Ltd.]

I think what cb5 is saying is that linear stories are better than nonlinear since even the most determined gamer cannot ruin the story of a linear game.
He does not like or respect nonlinear games. He thinks if you try to tell more than one story, your storytelling will suffer for it.

Then why the hell bothering to try to turn nonlinear games into linear ones ?

Why ?

[Sponsored content]