A casual look down the MobyGames lists on New Vegas and Outer Worlds 2 still shows a lot of overlap, so probably. It would be weird to invite people who didn’t work on New Vegas to see the realization of a thing they didn’t work on.
Josh Sawyer, Chris Avellone, and John Gonzalez were responsible for disproportionate amounts of New Vegas’s overall design, world building, and writing.
Gonzalez seems to have done a disproportionate amount of the writing.
Of those 3, only Sawyer is on Outer Worlds 2, as the Studio Design Director, a relative demotion from being Project Lead in New Vegas.
Of those Sawyer specifically names… we still have himself, Jesse Farrel, and Jeff Hugses, on the Outer Worlds 2 team.
John Gonzalez, Chris Avellone, Eric Fenstermaker, Akil Hooper, Rob Lee, Charles Staples, Travis Stout, Steph Newland, Mat MacLean, and George Ziets, are all absent.
So basically, almost everyone is gone other than Josh Sawyer and two area designers/writers, who I am guessing wrote the stories and dialogue specific to the areas they designed (for New Vegas).
John Gonzalez was probably the most invovled in actually writing the most important parts of New Vegas, he doesn’t appear to be on the Outer Worlds 2 team.
I don’t think Sawyer was “demoted”. I think he’s just on other projects. Pentiment’s entire development probably fit within Outer Worlds 2’s timeline. I don’t think Bethesda said, “invite everyone who worked on New Vegas” expecting there to be no change in staff in 15 years, but there are still plenty of people from that old project there.
As basically a design lead, as opposed to total project lead.
Yeah, sure, he could have requested that himself.
It still basically is a demotion, its less responsibilities, not in charge of the whole project.
In fairness, he’s getting pretty old, I don’t blame him.
But the main point here is… its pretty much just Sawyer, out of names people might actually know, who’s the only one from New Vegas, who is on the Outer Worlds 2 team.
He’s on Outer Worlds 2 as “Studio Design Director”, as in duties that apply to the entire studio, a studio that works on multiple projects at any given time. He was game director on Pentiment while Outer Worlds 2 was being built. I’m sure he did plenty of actual work on Outer Worlds 2 the same way that my boss helps solve problems I’m having, even though they’re also working with other teams on other projects. He probably also got started on his next main project right after Pentiment wrapped, all while helping out on Avowed, Outer Worlds 2, and Grounded 2.
its pretty much just Sawyer, out of names people might actually know
I knew very few of these people’s names before looking at the credits just now, but I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. There are names on there that you probably didn’t know that worked on both projects.
I… just went to went to Moby and actually ctrl+f searched for the names that Sawyer specifically mentions in his the reddit thread that I linked to.
And I at least already knew Sawyer, Avellone, and Gonzalez, because I’m a pretty big fan of New Vegas.
I’m quite familiar with Sawyer, because…
… Sawyer famously released his own mod for New Vegas, which is basically ‘Hardcore Mode ++’, literally his originally intended design that was not able to be fully stuck to in the main developement cycle of the game.
Other people have since taken his mod further and expanded on it, but you can still find the original though, up on NexusMods.
You could go to Moby games and start using Ctrl+F for the names found on the other Moby games page. That’s what I did. I found like 7 or 8 in common before I stopped. That’s enough on its own for a fun reunion on the set of the TV adaptation of the thing you built 15 years ago.
“I think fans debate what their favourite one is, which is understandable,” Howard says. “I think it’s great that you can have a lot of factions and the fans say, ‘Oh, I like one or two or three or four, or Vegas or 76’ now, and so I think that’s really healthy for a franchise where people can say which one is their favourite.”
I’m sure Todd’s head canon is that there’s more of a debate than there actually is.
im not sure what this comment is trying to get at, ive never seen a game franchise more debated than fallout. ive seen every game labelled as someones favorite, including that awful brotherhood of steel game
The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter. It doesn't mean it was a good game or something was done better (which is what Todd is looking for, validation), because some people liked it.
then what is? because 3 new vegas and 4 are all pretty much critically acclaimed, so would we go based off sales then? because in that case the order would be 4 then 3 then new vegas
That's the point, it doesn't matter. Enjoy any you want.
Todd just wants "his" Fallout games to be the most liked, to stroke his ego.
Also side note, sales never works as a metric because the gaming industry is constantly growing, any game released now sells much more than it ever would have 5, 10, 15, 20.. years ago. Regardless of quality.
Just about any game is someone’s favorite, but that doesn’t mean there’s a lot of debate. Fallout 4 and 76 appear to have reached an audience much larger than the rest of the series’ usual standards for copies sold, so the sense I get is that if you’re calling one of those your favorites, you most likely haven’t seen most of the rest of the series. I think 3 and 4 get a lot of criticism that may go too far, but the long and short of it is that the consensus is that Bethesda’s entries are not among the strongest in the series.
that may be your opinion but ive seen people who love fo3 but cant get into new vegas, who love 4 but cant get into 3 or new vegas, who love 76 because its online multiplayer and therefore not as big on the single player entries. theres endless debates about it. you may think its consensus but its not as clear cut as you think
hell theres fallout 1 purists who think that game is the ONLY fallout game
I’ve been on gaming forums for a long time, and I honestly can’t recall a single time I saw anything resembling an actual debate that people might like 3 more than New Vegas. I have seen debates of 3 vs. 4 and New Vegas vs. 1/2, but I’ve never come across a debate between people who’ve played more or less the entire series and preferred Bethesda’s games. Maybe that’s you, but this would be the first time.
ive seen it quite a bit. but i think 3 fans are too busy starting up another character to bother with debating 😂 definitely a quiet crowd but not totally invisible
I’ve seen a ton of debate over 3 and New Vegas. People have said New Vegas is too small or too empty. I don’t get that at all, but I’ve definitely seen several people saying so in different venues.
Well, take this for what it’s worth since I’m personally of the 1 > NV > 2 > 3 > 4 > Tactics/76 > BoS persuasion, so our preferences probably overlap and I might not be the best person to speak to why some prefer 3. But here’s my best take at why some people might genuinely prefer Fallout 3 over New Vegas.
1. The world is more exploration-friendly.
Fallout 3 drops you near the center of the map, uses fewer invisible walls, and basically lets you run in any direction from the moment you leave the vault. Some of those design choices come at the cost of immersion and a clear sense of progression, but for players who just want to wander and explore, 3 scratches that itch.
New Vegas, by contrast, funnels players through a “racetrack” loop that eventually leads you to the Strip, then sends you outward to deal with the major factions. This structure reinforces the narrative pacing and supports the game’s strong story design, but it does reduce the sense of open-ended freedom.
2. Fallout 3’s dungeons are more extensive.
Most of 3’s dungeons are longer, more combat-heavy, and offer more substantial looting/scavenging opportunities, including bobbleheads and unique gear. While New Vegas has brilliantly written locations (Looking at you Vault 11), many of its buildings amount to one or two rooms, largely due to the game’s famously short development cycle.
For players who enjoy the simple rhythm of clearing out big spaces and gathering loot, Fallout 3 offers more of that classic “delve and scavenge” gameplay, even if its combat system is fairly “mid”.
3. The atmosphere feels more traditionally “post-apocalyptic.”
This one is entirely subjective, but many players feel that Fallout 3’s bleak, bombed-out wasteland better captures the classic “nuclear apocalypse” aesthetic. New Vegas has richer world-building, themes more aligned with Fallout 1 and 2, and a more realistic sense of a society rebuilding after centuries, but its tone is often more eccentric than apocalyptic. For some players, that makes 3 easier to get immersed in.
For the record, I still personally believe New Vegas is the stronger game. (Outside of “atmospheric reasons") Most of the things Fallout 3 excels at are also done just as well (or better) in Oblivion and Skyrim. But what New Vegas does well, player agency and narrative depth, is something very few non-Isometric CRPG games even attempt, and even fewer do it even half as good. So comparing the two within their respective genre “spiritual siblings”, NV is a exemplary title within its peers, while 3 is kinda just “one of the post Morrowind Bethesda” games (where Skyrim seems to reign as the champion).
Still, Fallout 3 delivers the “meditative, exploration-driven gameplay” that Bethesda built its reputation on from Oblivion onwards. For players who fell in love with that formula (especially those who entered the series with 3), New Vegas can feel like a departure from what they enjoy about the series.
And honestly, that’s one of my favorite things about Fallout: every game is a departure from the last. Fallout 2 shifted the tone dramatically from Fallout 1. Fallout 3 reinvented the franchise entirely. New Vegas reworked 3’s skeleton into something more narrative-focused. Fallout 4 emphasized crafting and building. Fallout 76 went multiplayer. No matter which game is your favorite, each one brings something unique to the table.
Anyway, I could talk about this stuff until the actual apocalypse, but I’ll end it here. But hopefully this helps explain why some people genuinely prefer Fallout 3 over New Vegas.
Thanks! But I really do mean it when I say I haven’t come across defenders of 3 over New Vegas, so this was definitely all a new perspective for me, lol. I also think there are a lot of people asking for a new Fallout game that haven’t tried 1 and 2, and I’d love to point more people that way when the topic comes up, or at least to the Wasteland games as a close enough proximity.
But I really do mean it when I say I haven’t come across defenders of 3 over New Vegas
Agreed, there are not very many folks still hard Stanning for 3. Though I think a large reason for that is 3 was superseded by Skyrim, and FO4. While NV fans are still kinda waiting on even a true spiritual successor. So NV fans really haven’t moved on, while 3’s fans have long since gone onto other things.
Plus, the things 3 does well kinda makes you “forget about most of it” after a while. Like, I play A Tale of Two Wastelands pretty often, and one thing that stands out about 3’s world is how much of it is just more of the same. It all just blends together. Eventually, the feeling of a real world breaks down, leaving you with a “lot of gameplay with not a lot of substance”
NV’s emphasis on world building and choice on the other-hand makes you think about the game a lot more, even when you put the game down, you can still “play it” just by thinking about how your choices would affect the long term realities of the world.
So while 3’s fans can basically say “Yeah, I really liked that game, the world was fun and stealing the Declaration of Independence from that robot was funny”, NV fans can have full on years long debates of “Independent Vegas vs NCR vs House”, I’ve even seen some mad lads argue that Caesar’s belief that a sufficiently strong opponent to challenge the NCR would force the NCR to address some of the issues they were having as a country was a good idea. These people are of course insane, but you get my point.
All of this really adds up to the fact that NV built a game that is easy to form communities around, and people are excited to talk about, while 3 kinda just built a really solid turn your brain off game.
Edit: Oh, and yeah, 100% agree. More people should play 1 and 2. It’s hard to recommend for fans of Bethesda games to go back to an obscure game from the late 90’s, but like, they’re so fucking good!
For the setting point, I agree three is more classic post-nuclear-apocalypse, but also that’s a big negative. Fallout isn’t just post-nuclear-apocalypse, it’s post-post-apocalyptic. The radiation should be a lot less prevelant and there should be societies rebuilt.
Three feels like it should be set very soon after the nukes fell. A lot of the narrative and environment don’t make sense with the timeline they wrote. There’s speculation this is because it was originally supposed to be set much earlier, but they pushed the date back late in development to make the story BoS VS Enclave, which wouldn’t fit earlier.
100% agree. A youtuber once summed up the setting pretty perfectly imho. They said something to the effect of
“Fallout isn’t just a post-apocalypse. It’s an example of retro futurism. Specifically, it’s the year 2077, as the people of the 1990’s imagined the people of the 1950’s imagined it. But then, that society got nuked, and the post-apocalypse imagined by the pop-culture of the 80’s and 90’s rose from it’s ashes.”
3’s more standard “post-apocalypse vibes” don’t really nail the vision of the original Fallout. This is especially a negative if you are coming at Fallout from the standpoint of a long time fan. Like I said in my first rant,
“New Vegas has richer world-building, themes more aligned with Fallout 1 and 2, and a more realistic sense of a society rebuilding after centuries”
And yeah, it seems pretty obvious that 3 was meant to be set much earlier in the timeline originally. With Rivet City being the most advanced “from the ground up” society in terms of agriculture simply by having a small hydroponics lab, most of society surviving by scavenging, attempts to cleanup and rebuild at an extremely early or nonexistent stage, etc.
Though I assume that for folks who prefer 3, these are not hills they particularly care about, and that the more generic post-apocalyptic vibes (that were really in vogue when 3 was released) hit the exact fantasy they wanted to play through.
But yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with your points.
Very true, and that’s one of my favorite elements of the West Coast lore. Honestly, if I could change only one thing about Bethesda’s approach to Fallout, it would be their dogmatic approach to keeping the world locked in time.
I actually enjoyed the show, and am even trying to remain optimistic for season two, but resetting the world-building on the West Coast just to keep the apocalyptic tone really made me sad to see. Killed off a story I loved that had been slowly building since my childhood.
Bethesda has a lot of lore issues, but their main one is that they set pretty much all of their games far too late in the timeline. If you want to tell a post-apocalyptic story, that’s fine.
It doesn’t make sense for anything to be living in a place where the water has been poison for 200 years. Fallout 3 would fit perfectly before Fallout 1 on the timeline.
They knew it didn’t make sense for there to be like 3 half-assed towns in Boston after 200 years, so they created The Institute. Who are so all-powerful they wiped the Commonwealth of any real progress toward society, yet have no clear goals and are extremely incompetent. Set it around 60 years after the bombs, maybe take out the Synth plot and replace it with actual, nonconvoluted slavery, thus expanding on the themes of 3.
To me, the show is a collage of scenes that I like, with quite a bit of stuff that I really dislike. There’s really cool ideas in it, and I honestly do love how they reference some of the universal experiences that we get when playing those games. But the treatment of the lore, in general, is honestly borderline disrespectful. The nuking of Shady Sands, as you referenced. But also the dumbing-down of the Sino-American War to a simple ideological conflict. Fallout is absolutely about how different groups interact and conflict with each other, but it is not about capitalism vs communism, and the Sino-American War is not the real-life Cold War, it’s a war between America and China over depleting resources. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think they even really reference the war, save for a crashed SOVIET satellite. Awfully convenient to tweak it that way when the show is made by a global megacorporation and China’s all in on the American media market now.
Now, they’ve announced that in Season 2, “…every faction might think they’ve won.” To emulate, “…the story of history depend[ing] on who you ask.” Which, yknow, New Vegas already showed with the vast and varying opinions of its characters, as well as quite literally showing the effect of historical debate with the in-game debate about the Bitter Springs Massacre.
I’m waiting to see how they pull it off, but I can’t see how all the factions could think they’ve won if Mr. House is alive, seeing how you have to assassinate him for 3 of the endings.
Also, Caesar has an incurable brain tumor and you either kill Lanius or talk him into abandoning the front entirely in 3 of the endings. I don’t see how the Legion could ever be doing good. Maybe Macaulay Macaulay “Mr. McCulkin” Culkin Culkin is their new leader.
Apologies for the rant, I’ve sorted through my feelings on the material we’ve had for a while but this show has me hot. That said like yeah solid 7/10 as a standalone show and I would even recommend it to people who would never play the games anyway.
Yeah, I totally concur, a lot of the stories they want to tell fit so much better closer to the bombs.
I also think Bethesda’s need to make sure every story contains the core elements of Super Mutants, the BoS, Deathclaws, Radscorpions, etc is another key issue they have with the lore. When I played 1 and 2, it felt like I was seeing just a small slice of a world that could have any number of crazy new things in it. But now that it’s basically the same thing coast to coast, the world feels stale and predictable.
And you pretty much summed up all my thoughts on the show. The ‘collage of fun scenes’ made it enjoyable. But it was also beyond disrespectful. Throwing away the world built up in 1, 2, and NV just to make it match the key elements of 3 and 4 is… super fucking shitty.
And I really don’t see how they can make it seem like every faction in NV can think they won without also completely invalidating the significance of the choices in NV. But I’m honestly already resigned to Bethesda just killing off that as well tho, so I hope they at least still have a fun collage of scenes.
You’re absolutely right on your point about the core elements. They think that the Fallout universe needs a Triforce, a Master Sword, and a Ganon. But it’s just not that kind of series. The iconography is so much less important than the themes. It feels like they’re jingling keys in front of us sometimes when they show off BoS and Super Mutants (who were supposed to be dying out).
Funnily enough, the only icon they use that would feasibly be in every part of the US was Nuka Cola, and they retconned its design…
Oh, just saw your edit, but no apologies necessary. If the small essay I’ve written between all my comments is any indication, I just like talking about fallout. So thanks for the rant actually!
As someone else who prefers 3, I think that it’s more fun to explore and generally has a better atmosphere. New Vegas has better writing but the world feels empty. 3 more fun to actually play. Honestly, I’d probably take 4 over NV for the same reason.
1/2 I haven’t managed to get into. At all.
ETA - I was also never really interested in the wild west as a setting, so NV has a bit of an uphill battle from the start.
Fallout 3 is the better exploration game, New Vegas is the better RPG. Now, I love Fallout 3 and I think it has the best world design in the series (lore not included), but I get a great deal more enjoyment from leveling a character toward a specialization and seeing the different ways my small decisions affect the world than I do from dungeon crawling.
New Vegas has me covered there, its perks are really fun and a large part of its many quests have 3 or more solutions (or an alternative quest). Contrast that with Fallout 3, where perks often don’t do more than raise a skill and the quest outcomes are largely binary between angelic and pure evil.
However, if I want to scavenge through the wreckage of a dead world I can think of no finer game than Fallout 3. It really just seeps atmosphere from every pixel.
I don’t think it’s better than NV as a whole, but there are things it does do better. Probably the biggest is the random events. They have a lot more variety and interaction then NV. You might end up with a BoS Remnant group spawn and a Deathclaw, and they’ll just start fighting. NV doesn’t really have this. It’s much more contained and scripted.
In this way, 3 is closer to 1 and 2 than NV is. A large part of the first two games are the random events as you travel the world. NV is almost entirely predictable, with the same things always being at the same spots. 1,2, and 3 are fairly unpredictable while exploring. Landmarks will be the same, but what you see along the way usually won’t be.
Eh, I doubt it, because it didn’t seem like I was seeing too few. They came at an appropriate clip, and the second game even gives you a car to see fewer of them after the halfway point.
Your doubt isn’t a factor, it’s just how the game works. Unless both 10 years ago and 1 year ago you replayed them on a computer from the late 90’s, you didn’t get as many random events as were intended. The very fact that you think random events were such a small part of those games also confirms you weren’t getting as many as you were supposed to lol.
playing unpatched vanilla Fallout 2 will likely REDUCE the number of random encounters (and the time you spend on the map screen, lic) because the game originally tied the travel rate to your hardware.
There’s a reason why most fan restoration patches include logic to increase the number of encounters, to make the game play more like it was when released.
The reason is because they tied to travel system to clock speeds, and modern processors cause your travel speed to be too fast which the random encounter timing system doesn’t account for. People were complaining about this 15 years ago, the problem only would have gotten worse since then.
The GOG versions do not include any fixes for the encounter system.
If we ignore the part where that person had so many encounters that they came to the conclusion that something was wrong, and if we ignore the distinct possibility that people remembering a higher encounter rate could have been experiencing that due to their CPU spec not being what the developer intended even in the 90s as CPUs increased in speed wildly in the course of just a few years back then, it would only make the random encounters in the overworld more of a deterrent against traveling too often.
If we ignore the part where that person had so many encounters that they came to the conclusion that something was wrong
I wouldn’t ignore it at all, in fact, what they might even be experiencing is the games intended encounter rate which as I told you, is much higher than you think it is. A lot of modern Intel CPUs, especially in laptops, have efficiency cores besides their performance cores, and sometimes have insanely low base clock speeds, we’re talking as low as 200mhz. Given the games age, it’s very possible the game was scheduled on an E core and also wouldn’t boost the clock speed, resulting in the behavior they describe.
if we ignore the distinct possibility that people remembering a higher encounter rate could have been experiencing that due to their CPU spec not being what the developer intended even in the 90s
That’s not a possibility. The developers specifically designed the system with lower spec systems of the time in mind. They actually designed it in such a way that the encounter rate would be reasonable compared to their idea rate on systems with clock speeds as low as 200mhz (Just like our friend above).
Now that user will be experiencing more encounters than even the average player in the 90’s, but it still wouldn’t be outside of the realm of what the devs decided was intended.
Look, I believe you, but I’ll admit I’m having trouble reconciling a few things about it. If it’s a CPU-bound problem, I’d expect it to get worse as the CPU gets faster, and my PC now is much faster than the one I played Fallout 1 on about a decade earlier, yet my encounter rates were remarkably similar. Not only were they remarkably similar, but they were remarkably similar to every other RPG I’ve played like it, such as Baldur’s Gate and Wasteland 2. Looking at heat maps of encounter rates on a wiki, I definitely had more in the red zones, but it was maybe two encounters per square rather than a dozen, and a dozen sounds miserable; I, too, would come to the conclusion that something was wrong if I saw significantly more encounters than I did. I ran Fallout 1 on Windows back in the day and Fallout 2 via Proton, so we can eliminate that as a variable that may have caused the game to behave differently. A streamer I watch played Fallout 1 for the first time via Fallout CE and had extremely similar encounter rates, and not only are we running very different machines, but surely that project unbound the encounter rates from the CPU. If we’re hitting some kind of cap on encounter rates, why do they all appear to be at about the rate I experienced? And why would we not assume that that cap was the intended design?
cap on encounter rates, why do they all appear to be at about the rate I experienced?
Well it’s clearly not a cap if you’re seeing people having more frequent encounters than you are.
And why would we not assume that that cap was the intended design?
Because they tied the encounter system to CPU frequency and the highest consumer CPU frequency at the time was like 500mhz. Why on earth would you assume that the developers designed the rate not around what hardware was capable of at the time, but what would be capable 15 years later?
You’re suggesting that the developers got into a room together and said “Let’s design this so that it won’t play the way we intend for it to be played until 15 years pass”
By cap, I mean lower bound. I see random encounters. If random encounters go down as CPUs get faster, my CPU is so much faster than one from the 90s that my random encounters should approach zero, but I had plenty. I just didn’t have what that person experienced where it felt like too many. In fact, it felt so right to me that I didn’t question that anything might be wrong, but I would if I saw dozens. You’re right: there’s no way they could foresee how fast my CPU would be in 2024 or 2013/2014, so how would their logic still output what feels like an acceptable encounter rate that matches other games in the genre by accident?
If random encounters go down as CPUs get faster, my CPU is so much faster than one from the 90s that my random encounters should approach zero, but I had plenty.
I mean some napkin math and averages would tell me that your base clock speed is roughly 8 times faster than the fastest computers they would have tested on. Is 8 times faster truly enough to bring the random event rate to “near zero”? Problably not. And with an old game like this it’s not as easy as just comparing clock speeds because it depends on which CPU you have, do you have Ecores? If so is your computer scheduling it on those or your p cores? And in either case is it using base clock speed or boost clock speed? How do your drivers fit into all this?
There’s also the fact that while the encounter rate is tied to CPU speed it’s not a 1:1 relationship either. The encounter system also factors in tiles, and in game days.
that they built and tested the game on higher end machines than many of their customers had, and that faster CPUs resulted in the correct encounter rate while slower CPUs resulted in dozens.
Like I’ve already said, they accounted for lower CPU clocks at the time. They designed the encounter rate for clock speeds between 200mhz and 450-500mhz, the whole range for the time. You’re also acting like fallout 1 wasn’t a cheap side project half made for free by people working off company hours. It wasn’t some big budget release. Or as if Fallout 2 wasn’t an incredibly rushed game shoved out the door by a financially failing company.
I’d sooner believe that the game working differently at different clock rates was an oversight rather than how they intended for it to work.
It was neither. It was simply an engine limitation they had to account for best they could because the first two games were functionally just tabletop RPGs under the hood that ran on a modified version of GURPS and relied on dice rolls for practically everything. As with anything else in life they designed around the problems they encountered at the time, not some hypothetical distant future scenario they’d have no way to predict.
It’s the shoestring budget and development timeline that would leave me to believe that they didn’t intend for it to be dependent on clock speeds. It’s the tabletop roots that made me feel like I got the correct encounter rate while 8 times as many would feel wrong.
They didn’t intend for it to be based on clock speeds, they were bound by it. Your subjective opinion and personal taste is what made you feel like you got the correct encounter rate, not developer intention, which as we’ve discussed, would be impossible.
Like what I think you don’t get is that it’s ok that you prefer an encounter rate lower than what the devs intended. They wanted the world to feel dangerous and hostile, and gave you the option to alleviate the encounters through acquirable items and skill point allocations. You prefer the scripted content and want the random encounters to stay out of your way for the most part.
The old Fallout games were meant to feel punishing, to a sometimes unfair degree. That was the style at the time and you’d be surprised just how many games were like that. It was a different time. To circle back, that’s why there is in fact so much debate over all these games. People like different things and the Bethesda games are far, far more forgiving than the originals. Thats why some people like you play the classic games and enjoy the lower encounter rate, and other install restoration mods to restore the higher one.
I would say it’s “tedium” that sounds unappealing to me at higher encounter rates rather than “punishment”. And it’s not just my personal tastes but also what all of their peers were doing with encounter rates, including Wasteland 1 and 2, which I’m sure you know share a lineage with Fallout.
You call it “tedium”, the developers and many classic FO enjoyers called it “immersion”, “living world”, and “fun”.
Wasteland 2 came out 16 years after Fallout, so naturally they aren’t really peers and their design philosophy will be a lot closer than to modern games in that they’re more forgiving.
Wasteland was more of a predecessor to Fallout 1, as the developers were big fans of it and they thought of Fallout as a spiritual successor to Wasteland. Fallout was also designed to be far more punishing in its early game with a steeper power curve, and had a higher focus on the player being a singular, fish out of water character, rather than a capable party like in Wasteland. They also wanted to put more pressure on the player, hence other mechanics like the time limit.
I also faintly recall the creative director of Fallout 1 talking about replaying Wasteland more recently and mentioned needing some kind of limiter to play it because of some issue with movement and other calculations being tied to CPU and/ or FPS. So it’s possible Wasteland has a similar issue, though I wouldn’t know as I’ve never played it.
I only played about 5 hours of Wasteland 1, but in what I’m sure is a DOSBox container that it comes in via Steam, the encounter rate was once again very similar to my experience with Fallout 1 and 2 and other CRPGs. I’m glad you enjoyed the game that way, and I definitely learned that it was at all influenced by CPU speeds, but I’m still not convinced that I got an unintended encounter rate given how reliably I and others come across it that way, unless you can cite a Tim Cain video about it or something.
Spot-on. 3 absolutely follows the world design of 1 & 2, but it scales it down to a city area instead of part of a state.
I’m a huge New Vegas fangirl, but I will say that the random encounters have kept Fallout 3’s world surprisingly fresh. I’ve burnt myself out on the 30 side quests, but if I just go explore then I usually see something new every playthrough. Hell, 3 was the game that really cemented Bethesda’s status as environmental storytellers with a real knack for making a space point toward its previous purpose. Back before they dropped so many skeletons in random places that it became a meme in Fallout 4.
New Vegas simply does not have that type of design. There’s many more avenues to explore in quests and many more quests, but you can tell they focused the dev time almost entirely in that area. 10/10 tho, would recommend.
Not quiet at all. Lots of people loved 3. I’m old enough to remember when NV was the red headed stepchild of the series. I don’t think you’ve picked up on the fact that New Vegas is a cult hit. It didn’t become “everyone’s favorite “ for close to a decade at least after its release.
“What does FO3 have over New Vegas”? Well at the time New Vegas was regarded as a cheap knockoff of FO3. It didn’t do much to innovate from FO3 and played like more of a Fallout 3.5 which people resented. It also had a less bleak and more “Zany” tone to it than FO3 did which people weren’t a big fan of. Also by that point Bethesda had a bad reputation for releasing buggy games and NV somehow managed to be buggier and more broken than any Bethesda game had been, and what’s worse is it was never even to this day fixed as several major components of the game remain completely broken without fan patches.
I have seen debates of both 3 and 4 over New Vegas. These arguments tend to come almost exclusively from newer fans. Anyone who played 1 and 2 first, especially back in the day, tends to have a much less favourable view of the Bethesda Fallouts. But there are tons of Bethesda-first fans who came into Fallout after first playing Skyrim, typically. The 4 fans either love the base building or tend to think the other games are “too old looking/feeling”. The 3 fans… I don’t even know, that game is pretty terrible I think. But they tend to argue the design of the world in 3 is better to explore than New Vegas.
I haven’t personally heard anyone argue 76 is the best Fallout, but I’m sure someone is out there.
3 was the first one I ever played (after Oblivion tho to your beth point) and it was so radically different from anything I played before that I just fell in love.
New Vegas didn’t capture that same feeling in me, I like it but it just didn’t hit me the same way.
Fallout 4 I enjoyed a ton because of the base building and refinements on scrap usage for modifications and such, with mods like Sim Settlements it can be so damn cool.
The thing with 76 I’d only guess is literally the ability to coop.
Basically the only negative things I can say about NV is that they’re really heavy handed with forcing you to go through the map in certain direction/order. Though it still opens up in the second half of the game.
I mean, I love NV and think it’s by far the best 3D Fallout, but it’s also got a ton of performance and bug issues. Partly due to the engine they were working with and the insane development cycle, but still. The game isn’t without issues. It’s famously unstable and buggy if played without mods. I also think it needs mentioning that a lot of the assets look out of place, because they are. The game had such a short development cycle that a lot of them are just reused FO3 assets.
I love it, but there is a reason so many people recommend something like the Viva New Vegas modlist even for a first playthrough.
Makes you think of what could have been, if they’d done the new Fallouts as tactical/Turn Based RPGs, rather than first person shooters - although the new Wasteland games do a pretty good job of filling that niche.
I’m not saying Metacritic is the end-all be-all, but it does confirm the most commonly held opinion about the popularity of the modern games. You may think that there is a real debate here but that just isn’t the case. 4 and 76 are pretty firmly the less well received of these games.
Idk, The Elder Scrolls’ fandom debates a lot too. There’s still people fighting over whether the Stormcloaks or the Empire were right in Skyrim, or whether Morrowind or Oblivion are the best in the series
I could argue that there are more Fallout games than just 1 and 2, and that we should probably admit that if Fallout 2 gets to sit at the “true Fallout” table, Fallout: New Vegas should probably get a chair too. A bunch of the original Black Isle developers who worked on Fallout 2 helped make it, and it continues the same regional story and factions. But then again, maybe having the Fallout 2 developers is not enough to make something “truly” Fallout. Maybe it is the isometric (actually skewed trimetric) view, classic CRPG style. Although once we open that can of radroaches, we get a whole new pile of questions.
So maybe we can swing the other direction entirely and say there are fewer “true” Fallout games, and that only Fallout 1 really qualifies. That does have some logic behind it, since the original creators, Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky, and Jason Anderson, left during Fallout 2’s development. Their absence changed the whole design philosophy, shifting the tone, with way more pop culture references and absurdist writing, de-focused the tight world design of 1 so we got a ton of fluff dungeons and encounters, and gave us a more scattered writing experience thanks to the team being split up to work on different sections of the game (Tell me San Fran feels even remotely in the same universe as New Reno). Honestly, the jump from 1 to 2 kinda reminds me of the jump from 3 to NV. They feel the same on the surface, but are radically different experiences once you actually play them. But even then, Fallout 2 still uses the same engine and gameplay loop, so you could just as easily argue it stays true to the original formula.
But if that’s the case and we double down on the ‘gameplay matters more than the writing and development teams’ point of view, then Fallout Nevada and Fallout Sonora belong on the list as well right? They are fan-made, sure, but they run on the same engine and play almost exactly like Fallout 1 and 2. So now we are up to four “true Fallout games.” So our definition needs to rules those out to get back to “only 1 and 2”.
So maybe the fan-made games do not count because they are not official releases? But if it being an “official release” is the only rule, then Fallout 76 suddenly joins the “true Fallout” club too, which probably tells us that the bar has to be higher than that.
So if we say that a “true” Fallout game needs a mix of all the things above, like the original devs from the original studio working on the original engine with the original tone and the closest connection to the original story, then we come full circle and land right back at “Fallout 1 is the only true Fallout game.”
No matter how I slice it, I can’t find a definition that only includes Fallout 1 and 2…
You know… thinking about it, I guess the only constant of every single Fallout game since 2 has been that fans of the previous entry look at it and say “this is too radical a departure, this isn’t a true Fallout at all!”
It’s absolutely fun with friends, we put in around that many hours and then haven’t played it much since, but for the $10 we paid. It was well worth it.
i’m less worried about me not buying their games and more worried about the folks who buy madden every year even though the last interesting release was 08
Horses, a first-person psychological horror adventure about “the burden of familial trauma and puritan values, the dynamics of totalitarian power, and the ethics of personal responsibility” set on a ranch where nude human beings in horse masks are treated as livestock.
Is this just a game for edgelords or is there something compelling under that mess of a description?
Edit: We don’t have to pretend every game is art - there’s crap out there. I’m asking if anybody thinks this thing has redeeming qualities based on actual information about the game, not hypotheticals.
Whether a piece of art is a monumental accomplishment or a fleeting novelty should have no bearing on the content it is allowed to display. Making that distinction is indulging in censorship.
Unless you’re saying that Michelangelo gets a pass, but Horses doesn’t? How do you know whether a piece of art is worth it? Where do you draw the line?
Stephen King’s IT has the famous scene where children have an orgy in the sewers. Is he allowed to write it? What’s the difference between IT and Horses, apart from the (subjective) quality of the works themselves?
I think it’s a very interesting experience, although it may not be apt for people who play for the gameplay exclusively. It’s eerie and unsettling in a way that’s difficult to replicate in more traditional/mainstream media, which I think is a good thing in a horror game. If you’re tired of random ghosts, zombies or similar and want a more unique experience, Horses provides that.
Whether you’ll like it, heavily depends on whether you are willing to forgive its shortcomings in the gameplay department in favour of the unique story and social commentary it aims to provide. I’ve played multiple games in the past where I liked the story and didn’t care much for the gameplay, but I also have friends who are unwilling to play a bad game with a good story, so, you know, YMMV.
If you’re asking whether “that mess of a description” exists solely for you to masturbate on or to provide shock value, then I disagree. While the game does feature heavy themes and abhorrent imagery, they exist to convey the narrative. The following is from a Reddit comment (user: yougotiton) that sums it up very nicely:
[…] the puritan can never be free of sexuality, but is vindictive towards the reality of sexuality. It’s easier for them to express their own sexuality through abuse and violence than it is to confront it or interrogate it.
It’s also a horror game, so, you know, abhorrent things are to be expected (and are appreciated when done right).
Happy to oblige.
To be frank, and I’m sorry if this may sound a bit blunt, you might get more thoughtful replies if your question focused less on dismissing the game up front. The front-loaded tone of your original question is what drew so many downvotes and pushed people away who may have been willing to answer your questions thoughtfully. I also completely missed your point and talked about censorship instead of the game itself because of that.
It’s alright if you don’t like the game or its content, and honestly, I don’t think the game’s for me either; but I wouldn’t be so quick as to judge it as edgelord shovelware before even trying to assess what kind of game it is, especially as the article, which you quoted, made it quite clear that the game had social commentary going on and wasn’t just porn slop.
Ah yes, yes. The game from “one of the best indie game developers” that, as of 2025.12.04 (2 days since release), has <4 Metacritic user reviews (no score) and stands at 77 score with only 7 reviews by game critics. Devs get tons of free clout by being removed, but somehow their game is still unpopular. Wonder why.
They got tons of publicity by being banned from steam. They harnessed it as much as possible which spawned the infamous “one of the best indie game developers” title in some news articles. Being banned from two major game stores brings a lot of eyes on their game. And even with a bright spotlight lightning up their game - still barely anyone is talking about it. My theory is - game is below average at best and can be barely called an art piece in gaming industry. (based on what I know about the game and on one youtube playthrough)
Popularity matters cause it is a good metric to measure sales. If game is good and sells well - people will talk. People are barely talking about this game. Sales are probably very low. But also, what would sales be if it wouldn’t be banned of steam? I bet they would barely exist.
It would be an extremely risky strategy. The studio’s whole portfolio are offbeat shortforms (indeed one of the higher profile indie devs) and I don’t think getting banned from Steam and losing sales there was something they anticipated. Using this for publicity is plan B for damage control, never has been plan A.
The steam ban was ages ago, the news was recent. They decided to go loud about the steam ban as they released, its clearly pr. I dont think they got banned intentionally but the differwnce is a little academic when you cry this loudly about it.
Yes, as I said, plan B. Do you expect the studio to say “ok fuck it, let’s close up” when they projected a huge loss of sales after Steam denied their release?
(1) The devs trying to make the best out of a bad situation and marketing their game in a difficult situation is, like, not their fault? If you have a product, you want to sell it. Especially if you are an indie dev who desperately needs as much marketing as possible, and ESPECIALLY if you get banned from the largest videogame storefront on the planet because of Valve’s shitty review policies. Calling this “publicity stunt” is very narrow-minded.
(2) Some random news article calling them “one of the best indie game developers” is, again, not their fault. First of all, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and secondly, the devs are not out there brainwashing people to like their game. If someone liked their game enough to consider them a GOTY contender, good for them. My 2018 GOTY was CrossCode despite other big titles releasing that same year (MH World, RDR2, Spiderman, Celeste, God of War just to name a few), is it the dev’s fault?
(3) You calling it “barely an art piece” means shit all. It’s not up to you (or anyone) to decide what’s art and what’s not. This is blatant censorship, but I guess that’s alright as long as it’s not something you like?
(4) The problem is not that they would’ve sold fewer copies had they be available on Steam; the problem is that they weren’t allowed a chance to prove themselves to begin with, because of the shitty review policies by Valve who adamantly refuses to review any game twice (despite them having more than enough money to do so) when they find something they deem “unacceptable”, according to their nebulous metrics. Somehow Sex with Hitler is allowed to be sold on their platform, and so are many Japanese hentai games featuring questionably-legal child-like characters, but this one isn’t? Why is that?
In this crazy world where it could actually happen, I don’t think they did it with intent. Most likely the haven’t had this in their plans, but they did plan on having a minor in the game to ride a horse. They thought that it would be a great idea to capitalize on Steam ban - that is undeniable. And I can’t blame them. That is indeed a perfect advertisement campaign - loud and, most importantly, free.
It is just hilarious to me that with all this clout and attention, their game is getting barely any buzz post-release. And also that the most posted article about Steam ban is mentioning them as one of the best idie devs out there when they are like mid at best.
Thats not what theyre saying at all. Did you read the comment?
Theyre saying after the Steam ban the company decided to make use of the ban to popularize their game, which is completely normal imo. Theyre only saying the game is overhyped by controversy.
They got told “no, and never” by Steam 3 years ago. It’s absolutely a marketing move to bring it up now. The Epic and Humble removals were rug pulls, though.
Does it being a marketing move mean that it’s not worth criticizing Steam for having a one-strike-you’re-out system? I don’t think it does. If your game has (something valve considers reject-worthy) and you get rejected, you should probably be allowed to submit it again after removing the thing valve rejected you for.
that would be impossible! Lord Emperor Gaben is the sole bringer of light to a world of darkness, he, and he himself, is single-handedly the reason why there is still good in the gaming industry! for example, he, alone, by himself, birthed Linux, so we could all enjoy a world free of the tyranny of Microsoft!!!
ok but for real. why do gamers talk about gabe newell the way tech people talked about elon musk circa 2018… im seeing a lot of uncomfortable parallels
Wait, I thought this game was a depiction of what we subject horses to, using a horror lens to drive home the point? I’ve never heard of something less sexy?
My understanding is that there was a scene where a young girl rides a naked man/woman around. Apparently it has since been changed to make the child older, but… I can perfectly understand why anyone would be hesitant to accept such a game based on that description alone. Even if it’s not intended to be sexual, the developers were certainly pushing the line
That’s not how this works, you don’t get to decide what is acceptable for other people. It’s people like you who galvanize Mastercard and Visa in trying to control what kind of content we’re “allowed” to purchase.
To be clear this all sounds repugnant to me, but i realize Im not the sole arbiter of taste and have no interest in telling other adults what (legal) things they are and aren’t allowed to do.
If the game is so bad it’ll tank, it doesn’t need outside forces influencing it.
That’s not how that works. You don’t get to decide what a store does and does not sell. Steam refuses hundreds of games a year, this one doesn’t get special treatment.
Saying “I understand why (store) would not want to carry this product” is not the same as saying “no store should carry this product.”
I’m not admonishing the store, as you said it’s up to them to carry what they like. I’m admonishing you and people like you for trying to exert pressure on the store to not carry something you personally don’t like, because again, you’re not intended to be in charge of what others sell.
Earlier this year steam updated its guidelines to prohibit content that “may violate the rules and standards set forth by steam payment processors and related card networks”
Visa and Mastercard pressured steam to remove a game because they didn’t agree with its content. Visa and Mastercard only care because they believe they end users care - that’s you, a potential end user of visa and Mastercards service. Valve only cares because visa and Mastercard care.
You saying “I see why they wouldn’t want to sell the game” helps them to pressure steam into self censorship.
You’re speaking with an awful lot of confidence on stuff you don’t seem to be very well versed in.
For example, you somehow missed the fact that just months after payment processors forced steam to remove a game, they’re suddenly self-censoring.
Um, he didn’t say he was deciding for others, he said he could understand how others would be hesitant… sounded like he was supporting your very point that people have a right to have their own opinion.
The only reason someone wouldn’t want to sell something is because of pressure from others - you boil it down enough and the logic is “I don’t want to sell this because others will judge me”, which stems directly from others judgement, being my entire point.
You can claim “Valve doesn’t want to sell it for moral reasons”, but they’re not a moral body, they’re a corporation - their only job is to earn money.
The more people feel they can dictate what a retailer sells, the worse it gets for all of us, and retailers choosing to drop things rather than “roc k the boat” is a problem.
Sure, this is a pretty repugnant case, but the slippery slope starts somewhere.
I regret my short hand of “slippery slope” but it’s not a coincidence that less than 6 months ago payment processors used their influence to get a game pulled from steam and now all of a sudden steam is self censoring based on content.
Whatever the non-fallacious version of “there’s an escalating pattern here” is what’s happening.
You claimed Steam banned this because of the payment processors. The same payment processors being used by stores that didn’t ban this. Seems a relevant point to the discussion we are having.
The article from July explains why Steam banned this game last month, despite Itch (which stopped selling certain games due to the payment processors) is selling it?
Who is this article writer that can see 4 months into the future?!
Along with the official release date of the game (December 2), the statement revealed that Horses was indefinitely banned on Steam in June 2023 – days before it was set to premiere on IGN’s Summer of Gaming event.
This is useful information I was not aware of - thank you.
While I was wrong about Horses, the issue with payment processors forcing censorship on Steam is still true and an enormous issue - Visa doesn’t get a say in what I purchase.
People are free to pressure retailers on what to sell and what not too. Saying they can’t would be far worse. And the retailer is doing the job of making money… by following the 2ishes of the populace. This is the free market capitalist society we live in. Completly sucks, but it is consistent.
I don’t disagree, I’m just calling the people who choose to complain morons, because again I don’t believe they should be the arbiters of what is acceptable.
Basically, you’re free to have your opinion, but keep it to your fucking self and your fucking echo chambers you regressive fucking failures (the general you, not you specifically)
Interesting point. But in general, who are the people complaining in the wrong spot. I suspect people basically are complaining in thier echo chambers… social media. And likely noone cares. But then the media jumps in and picks it up. So is the media to blame? I read a story about a lady in Britain I think who had like 89 followers and made a statement. It went viral. Suddenly her statement to her echo chamber was in the news. It ruined her life actually.
So are we saying the media should be banned on reporting what is said inside echo chambers, or are we saying public posting of opinions should be banned?
Neither. I’m saying that visa and Mastercards opinion on what I’m buying means fuck all to me, it’s none of their fucking business. I don’t care who writes you a letter, posts on face book, what the media says, it’s not their job to police my purchases.
They’d be 100% in the clear just ignoring these people (the kind of morons who have time to cause this kind of trouble either don’t need credit or don’t have a choice in the matter, so no loss of customers), but they decided to interject themselves in a place they don’t belong. So fuck em, and anyone who tries to enforce limitations on the legal things I do via crybaby disingenuous public pressure.
If everyone felt like me, these attempts would fall flat on their face. Sadly, too many sheepish pearl clutching morons.
On the visa and Mastercard thing I very much agree. In theory they are a business, and can chose who to do business with. But the free market pressures don’t exist to impact the decisions they make. So instead of them being influenced by customer sentiment, they are actually influenced by large organization with an agenda. That agenda is usually just a BS reason to build the organization and make specific people rich. It doesn’t represent the will of the people. So… they should be treated more like a utility. Places are refusing to take cash these days, so it is an easy argument that they function like a utility.
The buyout has effectively already gone through, and as the price has been decided, any money you give to them is directly going to saudi arabia, as they will get that new value.
He cites a lot of Immersive Sim level design, Minecraft does not have that sort of detail; it merely provides a block-by-block construction system with some rudimentary decoration, it’s not gonna achieve his design requirement.
The game company seems to have thought that they could drum up sales on other platforms by making this a media thing. Based on the additional platforms pulling out, it might have backfired. They could have let their little horse-porn game quietly release on every platform but Steam and made enough to get by. Instead they drew attention to themselves.
Steam was the first major storefront to refuse to carry Horses, a first-person psychological horror adventure about “the burden of familial trauma and puritan values, the dynamics of totalitarian power, and the ethics of personal responsibility” set on a ranch where nude human beings in horse masks are treated as livestock.
Publisher Santa Ragione said in November that Valve declined to carry Horses because it contained “content that appears, in our judgment, to depict sexual conduct involving a minor.” Santa Ragione disputed that characterization, but an appeal was rejected and the ban stands.
I am just gonna pretend like Epic and HB banned it only after see all this PR work they’re trying to do to save this god awful looking piece of “art.”
And just becsuse the comments here don’t seem to know the real root issue: The game originally featured a child protagonist, and that was what Valve was sent to review. They only changed the protag to an adult after the rejection and now they are throwing a hissy fit over their pedo game being banned.
pcgamer.com
Najnowsze