Thoughts on Fallout Van Buren? Would it have been a good game?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Thoughts on Fallout: Van Buren? Would it have been a good game?
Thoughts on Fallout Van Buren? Would it have been a good game?
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
better than 3, new vegas, and 4 at least.
>better than 3 and 4
new vegas is worthwhile; just wish all the new vegas engine features were on 3
4 is skyrim with guns, which automatically puts it in the shitter
3 was an above-average game until new vegas hit the shelves, and neither have aged particularly well, though vegas is still more playable (though the setting is as repetitive than the old fo1 gambling mechanic)
fallout 1 and 2 had the best settings and dice-based gameplay, but 3 and NV have much more entertaining gameplay with their """immersive""" 3D sandboxes (which are entertaining enough)
it's a shame fallout 4 is such a disappointment, and that 3 and NV didn't share the same enthusiasm and hand-crafted feel as fo1 and 2
>t. obligatory never finished fo2 or played tatics post
4 isn't good, but it's sure as frick better than 3.
>4 is better than 3
there's things I like about both, but 4 is obviously the more enjoyable and approachable game (and has a weapons system more fun than 3's)
>and has a weapons system more fun than 3's
Unfortunately, the selection of weapons are inferior to Fallout 3.
Fallout 3 had the R91 Assault Rifle (and was an actual assault rifle), Type 93 Chinese Assault Rifle, and Shanxi Type 17 Chinese Pistol.
Majority of Fallout 4's guns look like shit, even with the crafting system.
F4's guns offer more variety in terms of function.
Out of all the 3D Fallout games, Fallout 3 has the worst gun offering and gunplay.
Better than 3&4 at least
I really want either Van Buren or New Vegas made in an isometric style with turn based combat, almost as much as I just want a an actual post-NV fallout game. I really enjoy the 1-2-NV storyline.
Birds-eye view is dogshit.
Only boomers and homosexuals give a shit about the (unnatural advantage) birds-eye view.
GROW THE FRICK UP, BOOMERS...!
How is it an unnatural advantage if the game is designed around it?
>unnatural advantage
Are you suggesting the npcs can only see in first-person?
Its just bait, without hardcoding bots to react to faux senses they see everything at all times and are never impeded by anything, ever.
Yup. Just take a look at the concept art with some data mined music https://youtu.be/HLhavWWp0pk Great vibe.
Also the Desgin Documents https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCagUJdg-iWr4kukWlqXsT_5F1r_iXcSz
I like the fact that they went with a more sci-fi adventure style of the original game.
>concept art
Absolutely meaningless, the actual game with those early 3d birdseye view graphics looked like garbage
Yeah the tech demo looked like shit, but it's the atmosphere that matter.
The asymmetrical coop multiplayer got used by Wasteland 3, so if you are wondering if the "Play With A Friend" would have been good, that can answer the question.
From what I remember about VB, it seemed like it was going to be a good conclusion to Fallout.
Luckily a lot of the good ideas got reused in NV.
But this wasn't supposed to be the final game. Actually, they were already setting up the next one, which was supposed to be about NCR and Legion conflict.
It's easy to say "oh there was totally going be a Fallout 4" before 3 happens.
They didn't even get through 3, to even start worrying about a 4.
Plus, you know how development goes, they probably would have merged those ideas into 3 anyways.
Not that it matters, we got NV and the VB's vertical slice.
>Plus, you know how development goes, they probably would have merged those ideas into 3 anyways.
If I recall correctly, exactly the opposite happened. They wanted Legion to be a big part of Fallout 3, but while they liked the idea, they had to cut it and instead just decided to foreshadow them, having small snippets of Legion in the game and a companion who would give some backstory behind them.
>If I recall correctly, exactly the opposite happened.
Yeah, it got cancelled.
>Actually, they were already setting up the next one, which was supposed to be about NCR and Legion conflict.
That was New Vegas. Van Buren is based before NV.
I doubt they already came up with New Vegas at the time. The game would definitely be something else, since locations like The Hoover Dam served a different purpose and a lot of NV ideas were supposed to be used in Van Buren
Van Buren cant' be canon to NV for a laundry list of reasons.
The story sounded terrible. Kind of glad it was cancelled
The story was never publicly released, you NIPPLE!
The design documents were. Not sure what that guy's problem is. The story sounds great, really similar to other Interplay games at the time.
the giant robot argos thing seems really dumb
I don't know man. A lot of original ideas sound stupid in design. I like the idea of an active obstacle trying to slow you down, while there's a good ending timer.
I thought that was an amazing concept I can't think of any other video game with one like it? I guess its kind of like Mr. X or The Tyrant from resident evil. I could imagine it being done really uniquely with modern engines like having it as a bit of a randomly generated encounter where he can track you to a degree from his starting point.
Yes it was.
Doubt it. I don't really care regardless. We got New Vegas, and should be happy with that. Forget Fallout, no other game has topped NV since its release. Graphics age and gameplay on the engine can be stiff, but no other modern game comes close to it in writing and RPG elements. Bethesda can choke on it and die knowing their garbage can't hold a candle to it.
i agree, everyone dick sucks new vegas so much but I wouldn't even say its overrated because of that. It's legitimately one of the best games ever made and easily one of if not the best western rpg
Does NV have any relation to 3? I tried playing 3 quite a while ago, probably close to when it came out, but couldn't get into it at all. I don't even think the graphics are bad really, but just the art direction in Bethesda games is usually pretty ugly. And NV is made by Obsidian but is still on the same engine, using at least some of the same assets I imagine.
I also don't really like the Fallout aesthetic, honestly, even if they are good games. I wish someone made a similar game (to the turn based ones) with another aesthetic/setting.
The only thing it has in common is legitimately just the engine, the artstyle, writing, gameplay, ugly green homosexual filter, map design, all are so much better.
3 is non-canon trash that should be completely disregarded. Try your best to erase it from your mind and begin again with NV. The same with 4 and 76, unless you really want to try out their base building and broken multiplayer gimmicks.
NV is basically FO3 funny cowboy edition with a piss filter
It's tang and it's kino. I never remove it when modding.
If the gameplay or graphics turned you off that much you won't like NV, it's mostly identical with those. The writing and quests are much better, but it's clearly based off of shit made for 3.
>I wish someone made a similar game (to the turn based ones) with another aesthetic/setting.
Look into Underrail. I've seen it praised as a true Fallout 3 multiple times. Combat is much better as well, but some people aren't huge fans of the dialogue/some of the quests. I personally didn't have a problem with it. It does have it's own look and setting.
>Look into Underrail.
seconding this
A.C.O.R.N > G.E.C.K
Try arcanum. Made by the People that made fallout with some similar gameplay but in an industrialising fantasy setting.
>Does NV have any relation to 3?
no, because 3 had no relation to the games that came before it, it was essentially a bethesda reboot.
NV is a sequel to fallout 2.
>3 had no relation to the games that came before it, it was essentially a bethesda reboot
which is why it was set on the opposite coast, so that writers could escape the trap of contradictions and nuances; probably people who've never played 1 or 2
nonetheless, if obsidian entertainment had produced 3 as they did NV, this entire board would be circlejerking over fo3
It was going to be utter dogshit, and it's just contrarians lying to eachother to try and convince themselves. This was post-'Piece of Shit' Black Isle. They were haemorrhaging money and desperate to break into the console market, and that *would* have impacted Van Buren. It was also going to be an early generation 3D game, and still isometric, so it would have aged like crap and failed to appeal to the mass market that Black Isle needed to capture, and so not only would it have financially failed it would have potentially killed the franchise along with the company and we would never have gotten New Vegas. This is all before we get into the stupid shit like m-preg ghoul babies. It was going to be a trainwreck.
Basically all of the good parts of Van Buren were repackaged and done better in New Vegas. It's possible that a lot of the evolutions of the ideas in NV would have come to fruition in a fully developed VB, but as is every idea that VB/NV share is done better in the latter.
The main story seems like it would have been the weakest part, looking over the design documents. The worldbuilding and location design seemed ace, but the main story was crap. Way too similar to the Enclave plot of 2. Funnily enough, the main story was done better when it was repurposed into Elijah and Ulysses for NV.
Gameplay wise, hard to say. The rules system for 1 and 2 needed work, and VB seemed like it was making interesting alterations but we never saw it come to fruition.
Main story had a lot of holes in it. The crux of the first act being "bring back the other prisoners" was moronic and massively underthought.
Isn't that what a lot of games do? Artificial reasons to visit every key location in the game? Kind of like NV Act 1 and 2, where in the first one you follow the footsteps of Benny and in the second one you're tasked to visit all of the subfactions.
By the looks of it, you didn't even have to bring all of the prisoners back, as some could die or dissapear. I wouldn't be surprised if you'd just learn more about the villain as you go and thus progress the story.
And I kind of miss the science fiction crap like The Master, Calculator, Supermutants as opposed to bland political conflicts that would fit in just well in any other genre. Seems like this is where a lot of opinions differ and why you disslike the ideas like a Giant Security Robot following you.
>And I kind of miss the science fiction crap
Because Mr House, Yes Man, etc. isn't sci-fi. That this isn't what the game is focused on and what ultimately matters.
>as opposed to bland political conflicts
You mean just like the Master and shit? You're telling me that political shit isn't as bland as it gets? It's anime tier.
>Isn't that what a lot of games do? Artificial reasons to visit every key location in the game? Kind of like NV Act 1 and 2, where in the first one you follow the footsteps of Benny and in the second one you're tasked to visit all of the subfactions.
The reasoning isn't what's bad, it's the execution. Benny has a solid paper trail behind him, you're actively tracking him. As far as we're aware, there was NO way to know the identities of the other Prisoners or to find out where they went. In the context of a game where you have limited locations, it makes sense that visiting everywhere on the map would make you run into them - but in the context of the world it would be basically next to impossible to find these people in the entirety of the Four Courners (not to mention them travelling anywhere beyond that).
It also feels particularly artificial compared to the Vault Dweller checking out the towns in south california or the Chosen One looking for the GECK in North California.
Similarly, how was the player meant to drag everyone back "dead or alive"? Physically, as in.
> as opposed to bland political conflicts that would fit in just well in any other genre.
I massively disagree. What world are you playing in where there are more politically driven RPGs than "Save the world from total destruction" ones? Presper's motivation was literally the same as the Enclave. The Mojave conflict is infinitely more interesting, and even then Presper was done way better as Ulysses and Elijah.
New Vegas offered way more interesting science fiction than Van Buren did with The Sierra Madre, Big Empty, Vault 22, Vault 11, The Securitrons, Mr. House,
A lot of this stuff was DLC related which disconnect it from the Fallout world, instead turning these into "look a fun story", then the rest was were references to the older games.
The only things that really comes to my mind when it comes to sci-fi in NV were the Ghoul Astronauts, (which were a bit overdone) and the Great Mr.House and his army of Robots
Speak for yourself. I thought the DLCs were well connected to the base game.
The frick are you talking about? Shit like space lasers and shit isn't sci-fi to you?
Did you even play the fricking game?
probably not. it might have been better than the fallout 3 we got, but just hearing about the level of control interplay was exercising (mandating real time combat for example) bodes poorly for the end product. also the 3d looks like shit, even accounting for the unfinished state.
I wish they took more lore from it for NV, at least. Or at least there was a sequel to NV that used more of Van Buren in some way. Like Twin Mothers and such.
Hanged Man sounds fun to use
also a guy trying to recreate VB using the original designs
https://projectvanburen.com/