Marionetten wrote...
This is where I'm going to have to completely disagree with you and wonder if you played the same game. Less reactivity?
The fact I
dislike the game doesn't mean I didn't play it.
One of the very first choices you get in the game is letting a bunch of thugs wipe out a town. Something which the game does recognize and continues to recognize throughout your whole playthrough.
To save a dude who is associated with the Crimson Caravan, who as it turns out barely acknowledges what you did outside of a brief thank you and provides you with absolutely no new dialogue or basic interaction with the Caravan, despite provises to the contrary, as it turns out.
All that the game does is give you a reputation hit with the power gang. But that's just algorithm.
Of course, the faction system is heavily tied into the reactivity of the world. If you do wipe out the town you get reputation with the thugs which allows you to travel to their headquarters and do more work for them. If you opt to save the town you get reputation with the town but the thugs will refuse to deal with you. This is the world reacting to your choices.
No, that's just the faction score changing. See, you see reactivity, whereas I just see exclusive content. You pick one side, you get some quests. You pick the other side, you get their exclusive quests. That's all it is. This isn't some magic reactive implementation - this is just quest availability tied to a reputation trigger.
The world doesn't react to your choices - if you start murdering NCR dudes left and right, you don't get a
different sort of treatment than if you start collaborating with the Legion. You just happen to gain a bonus to your Legion score if you work with them.
All that the game does is tie your killing to a faction score, each which is largely an indepedent axis with some
occasional exlusive overlap. That's it. That's your "reactivity". The game doesn't react to what you to - it reacts to what faction score you have.
And of course the game recognizes if I opt to kill someone stealthily versus going in there with a sledgehammer. First of all, I won't have nearly as difficult of a fight on my hands. Secondly, you incur no faction penalties for stealth kills. Thirdly, pulling off the perfect stealth kill is pretty darn satisfying.
Yeah, exactly -
faction penalty. That's your reaction. It's like morality points.
Once again, you're hung up on dialogue here. Dialogue is not the only form of interactivity in a video game nor is it the only way to provide feedback. It's fine if you don't like the game but to say it isn't reactive or interactive is just false.
I'm not hung up on dialogue. I'm "hung up" on interaction.
The world changing a faction score isn't interaction - people actually acknowledging your specific action as a real and living person, commenting on it
and allowing you to respond to their comments, that's interaction. That gives you the chance to be a living, breathing person.
All that you have in New Vegas is the opportunity to be a killing automaton who happens to gain differential quests depending on what is currently being killed.
Grand_Commander13 wrote...
So you're saying you prefer to
watch a movie where you have meaningless dialogue with many people
rather than have the ability to affect the world much more than even
Dragon Age which, while being Bioware's best in the field, you admit is
lacking?
No, I'm saying I would rather see people
react to what I do, by acknowledging my actions and commenting on them, and allowing me to comment back and explain my motives.
Whereas you want some
meaningless faction score that has no impact other than trigger some targets to be hostile or not, which affects which quests you can do.
I'm curious: what exactly makes your idiosyncratic
preferences superior to others'?
What makes you think I think my preference is superior? It's just my preference. I dislike Fallout NV style reactivity. It's why I buy a Bioware game. So with the thread being what does New Vegas mean for DA2, I answered the question: hopefully nothing, or Bioware losses my business. That simple.
MerinTB wrote...
Wow. Veronica is aweomse. I don't know what
game you played.
Veronica is bugged. She has her sob story, you pick her dosage, and then she becomes a mindless killing automaton like all the other companions with nary a comment or opinion.
And the protagonist is what YOU
make him. Mine is awesome - when people ask me (and many do) what kind
of character I'm playing or what I'm doing with my NV character, I say
simply "he's Danny Ocean."
I'm going to address this sort of external v. internal perspective on RP below.
MerinTB wrote...
And "you were a courier" is entirely a
set origin, you're right. You can't possibly go from that and play as
if you had, I dunno, come from a Vault, come from out west, come from
the east, been part of a tribe... before being a courier. That's all
set in stone -
oh, wait, again, the comparison fails. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/uncertain.png[/smilie]
Here we go. You know what you could be in Fallout 3 NV, the same way you could have been from a vault or tribe? A transgered ageless alien spy from Zarblox 245 spying on the human race for the purpose of preparing the invasion force. Once you have an accurate assement of their capabilities, you will report back to the fleet and wipe out all life on the planet, as it turns out human sweat glands are an awesome aphrodesiac for your species.
To me, the fact that a game can accomodate such an insane scenario means that it has absolutely no story, reactivity, or narrative force. It makes it have an unrelatable blank slate protagonist that can barely be considered a living being. To other people, this is just a brilliant feature. I get that. But appreciate we disagree, and appreciate
why some of us would think Fallout New Vegas involves absolutely the worst features of any possible RPG.
Retour en haut
Nothing impressive to me, a game which I didn't replay.
