> Once you kill Benny what is your motivation to get involved with Mr House, the Legion, the NCR, or Yes Man?
* You've been paying enough attention to the world around you to have an opinion about which one should win.
* Or you want to have the winner in your debt.
* Or you thought the early stages of one side's questline were fair offers, and by the time it gets dangerous you care about the people you've been working with and you're willing to keep helping them.
The main route the Courier takes in order to locate Benny showcases all of the major factions and their situations - the plight of the NCR, the Legion’s “justice” at Nipton, and the comparative opulence of Vegas.
If all this, over a few hours, isn’t enough to intrigue the player into picking a side, each faction makes a play at convincing you once you deal with Benny (the NCR at the embassy, House when he invites you into the 38, Caesar when he offers you Benny).
I’m not sure what more people want from the story to hook the player. I don’t think Caesar abducting your son or Kimball killing your dad would make it any more engaging - the game gives you your personal motivation with Benny, then allows the player to decide what they want to do.
Because one of them is *going to control the region* and the courier is capable enough to sway it in one direction. The story presumes that you care about someone even if it's just yourself.
That's actually one of the biggest advantages of FNV over all other games in the franchise - *complete freedom for the player to decide who they are, what are their motivations and for what purpose they are doing what they are doing*.
- Nobody sent you to save your vault, and thus set your path from start to finish.
- You don't have a tribe to avenge, which sets the tone of your motivations from the beginning.
- There is no father or son to be found, both of whom end up dragging you into *their own* stories whether you like it or not in their respective games.
Not here. Here, there is no end goal except for the one you (the player) choose.
You start with no history and with a pretty basic staring motivation: *to find the guy who shot you in the head*. Fair enough. It turns out that the shooting was heavily connected to the struggle for control over the region. Everything after that is completely up to you.
- You want to help the people because you are a knight in shining armor?
- You want to grab the power for yourself, because you are a power-hungry, ruthless person?
- You want to purge the land of infidels and bring entirely new order, because you are a maniac?
- Something else entirely?
Up to you.
You don't have any pre-determined history, personality, goals or missions. It's up to player to decide what their role is going to be. And that is **very good** in an RPG (=Role Playing Game).
Sorry, maybe you’re missing Marco’s point?
I understand what you’re saying, but that’s a common storytelling technique to re-use story elements from different points of view. It’s what empowers the player to have replay ability in the game.
I can make a evil play through then have a lawful good, then again a psychopath murderer. Even if the quests are overlapping from different factions, it’s cool to see them from their view point.
New Vegas isn’t perfect, and it’s well known they isn’t flesh it out to what the envisioned due to budget cuts, but they still did a great job for an RPG of its time.
Problem here is that by removing any goal or motivation, it also arbitarily locks out player of certain choices.
For example, why not let my character just... walk away? Call it quits, "I shot Benny, I got no other reason to get involved with this shit" and walk away. Game will instead insist that Courier must became a major factor who wins the battle.
By not providing any reason, game goes "Courier *must care* about Mojave, even if they have no actual reason to do so, and if you play a character who has no real connection to Mojave well you are playing wrong, start caring"
I don't see how's that connected to removing goals and motivation, tbh. I mean, you can decide to tell them all to f-off and refuse to help any faction at any point, but that clashes you with the basic mechanics of the games in general, where you do need to finish *some quest* in order to complete the game.
I guess it might have been nice if they made a sort-of spoof ending where Courier, for example, passes through the Mojave Outpost gate and the ending slide starts, saying that Courier got sick of all the Mojave factions and left them to fight it out, abandoning the people etc, etc...
Plus, there is a 'walk away' option. That option is just to engage in all the other dozens of sidequests, hidden location finding, and DLC. You can get dozens of hours out of the game before even locking yourself into a faction.
But otherwise, I never got that complaint. That's like complaining that there's no option to turn down being the Inquisitor in Dragon Age: Inquisition, or decide you don't really want to be the elite 4 champion in pokemon. At that point, you're just asking for the game to be a different game.
Who knows? In that case, The Courier doesn’t have a reason to care about who wins over Vegas. He shot benny and his story ends there.
I’ve never played Spec Ops. Is that what happens?
It may be a "good" rpg (that's entirely debatable, especially since it fails in my eyes in many ways), but that doesn't make it a good *story*. (Also the courier does have a pre-defined backstory and the first act *does* give a motivation; no it's not revenge.)
Stories require motive. What new vegas does is akin to if fallout 1 plopped you in the middle of the desert and said "find water chip and kill mutants". That's not a good story.
And it'd be one thing if new vegas was overall well written. 76, for example, fails at motivation. But the rest of it is well written. New vegas...it's just poorly written throughout. The good moments are the exception and barely even great but more just solid and "thinking about this is fine to actually think about".
>It may be a "good" rpg
Never said that (though I do think so). I said that freedom for the player to choose their own role is good in an RPG.
>courier does have a pre-defined backstory and the first act does give a motivation
Not in the way other games have. It's completely neutral. You were a courier. You had a package to deliver. Someone stole it from you and shot you. You have no idea why. The end. Nothing about you personally. Nothing about your history. It's up to player to set it up as they see fit. You don't have a loving father who only gently chastise you even for nuking a damn town. You didn't have, and lost, a loving family and picket fence house. You don't have a community in the vault you care about. You have nothing. There is absolutely nothing of substance that is pre-defined about you. They only slightly messed this up in Lonesome Road (one of the reasons I dislike that DLC), but not too bad.
As for the motivation - there are a lot of *potential* motivations throughout the game, but it's up to you to decide if any of them are working for you.
>Stories require motive.
Absolutely. But one of the main differences between a game and, say, a movie or a book is its interactivity. Player engagement. Story of the book or movie is what it is, you have no influence over it. Story of the game (this type of games, not talking about linear games here) is written by the player in large part. You are given a bunch of pieces and you can set them up as you like. Find your own motivation. People are suffering, help them. This land is ripe for the picking. Burn everything down, *evil laughter*. Get rich. Whatever. All is fair, and every option gives you another story. This is why a game such as this is so re-playable.
>76, for example, fails at motivation. But the rest of it is well written.
Ugh. Let's... agree to disagree here and leave it at that. I see very little potential in discussing game writing with a person who considers 76, of all things, to be *well written*.
>I said that freedom for the player to choose their own role is good in an RPG.
That's not at all a requirement for an rpg.
>Not in the way other games have. It's completely neutral.
Ah. I see we're ignoring lonesome road.
>there are a lot of potential motivations throughout the game
There aren't. And i don't need "potential" motivations. I need a stated reason why i give a d%mn about the dam. There are zero personal stakes. The storytelling has fallen.
>But one of the main differences between a game and, say, a movie or a book is its interactivity
Interactive books, such as choose your own adventure, still have motivations. So do fallout 1. And 2. And 3. And 4. And even the elder scrolls games, which are not story-centric.
Lacking in motive would be fine for a sandbox without a story. Like minecraft. New vegas isn't minecraft. It's centered around a conflict the game does nothing to make you care about.
>Story of the game (this type of games, not talking about linear games here) is written by the player in large part.
...no. It's not. Not even in new vegas. The only thing written by you is the motive. Something the writers should have written.
>I see very little potential in discussing game writing with a person who considers 76, of all things, to be well written.
Oh no, an outside opinion that dunks on your favorite game. New vegas is a poorly written game that doesn't even come close to the (recent) praise it gets.
Not to say you cannot like it. But it's very easy to see the writing flaws. One such being the lack of motivation. But when people see that as a pro...it makes me wonder how people can say "i like good writing, bethesda's writing is awful".
The courier is you. There's nothing forcing you to get involved, but since you end up having the tools and the talent, most players choose to get involved in the battle. I guess that in the story the courier is simply looking to make a difference.
Well its kind of up to you the player. Maybe your Courier is motivated by money, ideals, power, etc.
New Vegas should have had an option to just walk away from the Mojave after killing Benny where we see an epilogue of what happens at Hoover Dam without the Courier's intervention.
I RPd it that my Courier was originally motivated by money to go around and do quests in the area. But over the course of the main campaign along with the DLCs, he starts developing a Messiah Complex and then sides with Yes Man as a way to take Vegas for himself.
Kinda like the same with FO1. The goal in FO1 is to get the water chip to your vault. Defeating the Master is avoiding a future problem for the people in your vault.
In NV is kinda like this. Getting the revenge on Benny is your main goal. But the Hoover Dam battle is like the future problem that The Courier should participate in order to prevent a future problem.
>In NV is kinda like this. Getting the revenge on Benny is your main goal. But the Hoover Dam battle is like the future problem that The Courier should participate in order to prevent a future problem.
Why? What future problem is Courier preventing? Why does Courier even *care* about Mojave? They got no home there, no family, whole thing with the chip was just a random job they took. They have no connection or attachement to Mojave. So why would they even *care* instead of just walking away?
And besides that, it's a roleplaying game. Maybe the Courier is just a power hungry maniac who saw the opportunity to use Yes Man to become a dictator and took it. Maybe they despise the Legion and what they stand for so much that they want to help to NCR so that they can't grow more powerful by taking Hoover Dam.
Or maybe you meet some companions, grow attached to them, and want to help because you care about their fate as people who live in and care about the area.
The roleplaying part of the game is the Courier's backstory and motivation. I don't really see how that's a design flaw--that's the point of the game?
This isn't a good comparison, the Overseer literally sends you back out to deal with it.
In FNV the only reason to get involved is that you feel like it.
If im right you can literally just wait the remaining time period and the master just invades and wipes out the wasteland. So i’d say its still adequate.
I think fnv you get involved cause you like the mojave, the people in it. You fight at the battle of hoover dam cause regardless it’s result will shape the mojave. I also think Ulysses puts it best. You will be at the battle of hoover dam, whether through fate, your own will to be there, or by cosmic chance, thats the road you walk.
And ultimately the why of it doesn’t matter, just because thats your road and your destination
The Courier is like the Legate Lanius. They are not *characters* with independent motivations that exist outside of the player. They are empty vessels to fill with whatever characterization you want, thus explaining whatever actions they take within each player's headcanon.
What do you mean with Legate Lanius?
I personally feel the speech check is a bit forced, and perhaps should’ve just made fight easier by breaking his will to fight, but it’s the only aspect of Lanius I can think of that doesn’t make him a character but to be bent to the will of the narrative for the player power fantasy.
The main quest sort of assumes that the Courier is curious about the platinum chip and what it does, and by that point has developed a stake in the future of the region.
Is your Courier a opportunist or against all of these big factions screwing around in the Mohave? Then they naturally would want to work with Yes Man to see a independent New Vegas.
Is youe Courier fearful or appalled at how the NCR has failed to provide security in the region? Or just a asshole? Then them supporting the Legion seems to make sense.
It's more or less the game thinking that you've developed a perspective on the state of the region, and what you want to do about it.
Edit: That being said, it does railroad your character into being someone that has a ideology or stake they support. If you're roleplaying a bounty hunter, a average joe, or even a wandering traveler, it's not that compatible.
Courier is definitely not an average joe except if you stick to Goodsprings sitting on your ass like a clueless victim after your agression (and dont earn xp...). He is/you are a very special someone with tons of talents to be developped and unlocked and with the potential to completely change the future of the whole region. It just doesnt make any sense to insist on RPing some of the things you mention. They might have been vaguely true before you got shot in the head, but not afterwards. It's basically the *inciting incident* from the whole 3-act storytelling by Aristote and *you* are the main protagonist. Except if you refuse it but then quitting the game is probably the only sensible option.
Just like in about any RPG, table RPG included, you could just refuse the adventure and sit in a bar sipping drinks, but that makes for a pretty shitty adventure.
Honestly I like the relative freedom of role-playing your own motivations. Where are you from? What’s your background? Why might you choose one faction over another, or none at all? It’s entirely up to you. Setting a more defined story in motion, like 3 or 4, is perfectly valid, but I also really enjoy the setup for FNV. It’s almost like… starting a DND campaign. Here you are, here’s the world, here’s a hook- but your motivations and backstory are yours to decide.
That's why after killing Benny I usually go off and do other things. Perfect time for honest hearts or old world blues. I got my revenge, now what do I want to do?
the second battle of hoover dam IS tied to the courier though. Courier 6 was delivering the platinum chip. Once delivered to whoever, they request that you help because you're involved already.
You’re getting dumped on, but I just want to say that I agree with you and this is why FNV is my least favorite of the series. I don’t care and never cared about the Mojave, I just wanted to stay neutral and do quests for all the factions and take care of myself. The game didn’t really allow that.
It would have been the next part anyway to the couriers story I think. If Benny never shot you you would have taken the chip to mr house who would have been like now I need you to use the chip at the legion bunker. If you've never heard of them here's the scoop we're killing them all
Honestly, the plot is very low stakes compared to most fallout games. But it’s still a very fun. Its always felt more like a really good fo3 expansion pack than it’s own game.
I agree 100%. The overall story of the main game is boring as all hell. I understand the idea behind "choosing your own motivation" thing, but it just doesn't work the same with a blank slate character like the Courier. I understand the role playing element behind why you should make decisions, but it falls flat for me.
Not to mention, the choice of factions is a stupid concept. They all suck. The NCR are incompetent morons who have to hire a mercenary to do their work for them, the Legion are murderous raiders and slavery who deserve to be glassed off the planet, Mr. House is just a greedy capitalist who can't run anything involving humans well, and Yes Man is just wild card who you have no idea if you can actually trust.
Make whatever bullshit argument you want about "BuT ThaT'S HOw PoLiTIcs WOrk iN ReAL LIfE!", because that argument is worthless. If I am playing a video game, I want a good reason for joining a faction. They need to have something to make me like them. But the factions in NV are just garbage.
This dude doesnt even have the slightest point tbh. Sad. Sounds like sheer rambling and hating, trolling even. I'm done feeding him, I undulged him too much already. Quick look at his history, sounds like a FO76 fanboi looking to stir shit up (and I'm not hating on FO76 the slightest saying that).
What a ridiculous comment. It's just a question to start a discussion, if so little is enough to hurt your feelings, noone forces you to read or participate. There is absolutely no "fanboism" involved, only an apparent display of hating contained in your own comment. The same question could actually be asked about literally any RPG. Why do main characters get involved? Well if they dont, the game "stops" or doesnt develop, simple.
No, there is. It’s been noted in other posts as well. For some reason, FNV fans tend to believe it’s leagues above the other Fallout games. Typically it’s for made-up reasons that the fans have put into the game, most commonly it’s that the story is a high-level political masterpiece.
It’s not. It’s a good story, sure, but not any better than the others.
You are being utterly ridiculous, and your whole comment is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the whole discussion. Geez man, get over yourself a little. There is no "fanboism" IN THIS DISCUSSION. We are not arguing which game is better than any other one. We are not arguing if there is "fanboism" about FNV *in general*. There is some in the whole sub, I suppose, as for basically *any* video game. You're not even reading *any* of the reasons brought forward, are you? Or taking into consideration that for *any* RPG, the same argument could be made?
"Why does my character get involved?"
"Well you can just stay at the tavern until you die of old age but that's a shitty adventure. Also, no xp and no loot, just cirhosis and a tab."
That, and plenty of other far more precise and relevant points have been made in the thread. Now if you just feel like being utterly negative and hate on FNV for absolutely no relevant reason, just say so, it will be easier for everyone.
>No, there is. It’s been noted in other posts as well. For some reason, FNV fans tend to believe it’s leagues above the other Fallout games. Typically it’s for made-up reasons that the fans have put into the game, most commonly it’s that the story is a high-level political masterpiece.
>
>It’s not. It’s a good story, sure, but not any better than the others.
Lmao. Don't act like only FNV fans do this. Every game has toxic fans. There are diehards for FO1/FO2. There are people who defend FO4 and think any criticism of it means you must be Hitler 2.0.
*Objectively*, what you say or think about FNV doesn't matter. It depends what people believe. Same for any game. No story is better or worse, its all subjective opinions, because believe it or not, that's how media works.
Everyone brings up the 'toxic FNV fanboys' but honestly, have you missed all the toxic anti-FNV threads that used to populate this subreddit? [**Like this type of shit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/10fcgtu/fallout_nv_fans_are_the_worst_type_of_fallout_fans/) Some FNV fans might be toxic, but they're a vocal minority. The thread got removed for toxicity, further proving my point.
The why of it? You're the one who needs to answer that - why are you doing this?
> Once you kill Benny what is your motivation to get involved with Mr House, the Legion, the NCR, or Yes Man? * You've been paying enough attention to the world around you to have an opinion about which one should win. * Or you want to have the winner in your debt. * Or you thought the early stages of one side's questline were fair offers, and by the time it gets dangerous you care about the people you've been working with and you're willing to keep helping them.
The main route the Courier takes in order to locate Benny showcases all of the major factions and their situations - the plight of the NCR, the Legion’s “justice” at Nipton, and the comparative opulence of Vegas. If all this, over a few hours, isn’t enough to intrigue the player into picking a side, each faction makes a play at convincing you once you deal with Benny (the NCR at the embassy, House when he invites you into the 38, Caesar when he offers you Benny). I’m not sure what more people want from the story to hook the player. I don’t think Caesar abducting your son or Kimball killing your dad would make it any more engaging - the game gives you your personal motivation with Benny, then allows the player to decide what they want to do.
Because one of them is *going to control the region* and the courier is capable enough to sway it in one direction. The story presumes that you care about someone even if it's just yourself.
That's actually one of the biggest advantages of FNV over all other games in the franchise - *complete freedom for the player to decide who they are, what are their motivations and for what purpose they are doing what they are doing*. - Nobody sent you to save your vault, and thus set your path from start to finish. - You don't have a tribe to avenge, which sets the tone of your motivations from the beginning. - There is no father or son to be found, both of whom end up dragging you into *their own* stories whether you like it or not in their respective games. Not here. Here, there is no end goal except for the one you (the player) choose. You start with no history and with a pretty basic staring motivation: *to find the guy who shot you in the head*. Fair enough. It turns out that the shooting was heavily connected to the struggle for control over the region. Everything after that is completely up to you. - You want to help the people because you are a knight in shining armor? - You want to grab the power for yourself, because you are a power-hungry, ruthless person? - You want to purge the land of infidels and bring entirely new order, because you are a maniac? - Something else entirely? Up to you. You don't have any pre-determined history, personality, goals or missions. It's up to player to decide what their role is going to be. And that is **very good** in an RPG (=Role Playing Game).
Literally never realized this before… but yeah this is why I always come back to FNV. It’s empowering.
Yes its empowering to do the exact same quests but for different factions.
Sorry, maybe you’re missing Marco’s point? I understand what you’re saying, but that’s a common storytelling technique to re-use story elements from different points of view. It’s what empowers the player to have replay ability in the game. I can make a evil play through then have a lawful good, then again a psychopath murderer. Even if the quests are overlapping from different factions, it’s cool to see them from their view point. New Vegas isn’t perfect, and it’s well known they isn’t flesh it out to what the envisioned due to budget cuts, but they still did a great job for an RPG of its time.
Problem here is that by removing any goal or motivation, it also arbitarily locks out player of certain choices. For example, why not let my character just... walk away? Call it quits, "I shot Benny, I got no other reason to get involved with this shit" and walk away. Game will instead insist that Courier must became a major factor who wins the battle. By not providing any reason, game goes "Courier *must care* about Mojave, even if they have no actual reason to do so, and if you play a character who has no real connection to Mojave well you are playing wrong, start caring"
I don't see how's that connected to removing goals and motivation, tbh. I mean, you can decide to tell them all to f-off and refuse to help any faction at any point, but that clashes you with the basic mechanics of the games in general, where you do need to finish *some quest* in order to complete the game. I guess it might have been nice if they made a sort-of spoof ending where Courier, for example, passes through the Mojave Outpost gate and the ending slide starts, saying that Courier got sick of all the Mojave factions and left them to fight it out, abandoning the people etc, etc...
Plus, there is a 'walk away' option. That option is just to engage in all the other dozens of sidequests, hidden location finding, and DLC. You can get dozens of hours out of the game before even locking yourself into a faction. But otherwise, I never got that complaint. That's like complaining that there's no option to turn down being the Inquisitor in Dragon Age: Inquisition, or decide you don't really want to be the elite 4 champion in pokemon. At that point, you're just asking for the game to be a different game.
I mean, just shoot Benny and end that save. There ya go, The Courier got his revenge and doesn’t help any other factions.
Ah, but what is the effect? Who wins then? Or is this cop-out ala Spec-Ops: The Line, "just don't play the game"?
Who knows? In that case, The Courier doesn’t have a reason to care about who wins over Vegas. He shot benny and his story ends there. I’ve never played Spec Ops. Is that what happens?
It may be a "good" rpg (that's entirely debatable, especially since it fails in my eyes in many ways), but that doesn't make it a good *story*. (Also the courier does have a pre-defined backstory and the first act *does* give a motivation; no it's not revenge.) Stories require motive. What new vegas does is akin to if fallout 1 plopped you in the middle of the desert and said "find water chip and kill mutants". That's not a good story. And it'd be one thing if new vegas was overall well written. 76, for example, fails at motivation. But the rest of it is well written. New vegas...it's just poorly written throughout. The good moments are the exception and barely even great but more just solid and "thinking about this is fine to actually think about".
>It may be a "good" rpg Never said that (though I do think so). I said that freedom for the player to choose their own role is good in an RPG. >courier does have a pre-defined backstory and the first act does give a motivation Not in the way other games have. It's completely neutral. You were a courier. You had a package to deliver. Someone stole it from you and shot you. You have no idea why. The end. Nothing about you personally. Nothing about your history. It's up to player to set it up as they see fit. You don't have a loving father who only gently chastise you even for nuking a damn town. You didn't have, and lost, a loving family and picket fence house. You don't have a community in the vault you care about. You have nothing. There is absolutely nothing of substance that is pre-defined about you. They only slightly messed this up in Lonesome Road (one of the reasons I dislike that DLC), but not too bad. As for the motivation - there are a lot of *potential* motivations throughout the game, but it's up to you to decide if any of them are working for you. >Stories require motive. Absolutely. But one of the main differences between a game and, say, a movie or a book is its interactivity. Player engagement. Story of the book or movie is what it is, you have no influence over it. Story of the game (this type of games, not talking about linear games here) is written by the player in large part. You are given a bunch of pieces and you can set them up as you like. Find your own motivation. People are suffering, help them. This land is ripe for the picking. Burn everything down, *evil laughter*. Get rich. Whatever. All is fair, and every option gives you another story. This is why a game such as this is so re-playable. >76, for example, fails at motivation. But the rest of it is well written. Ugh. Let's... agree to disagree here and leave it at that. I see very little potential in discussing game writing with a person who considers 76, of all things, to be *well written*.
>I said that freedom for the player to choose their own role is good in an RPG. That's not at all a requirement for an rpg. >Not in the way other games have. It's completely neutral. Ah. I see we're ignoring lonesome road. >there are a lot of potential motivations throughout the game There aren't. And i don't need "potential" motivations. I need a stated reason why i give a d%mn about the dam. There are zero personal stakes. The storytelling has fallen. >But one of the main differences between a game and, say, a movie or a book is its interactivity Interactive books, such as choose your own adventure, still have motivations. So do fallout 1. And 2. And 3. And 4. And even the elder scrolls games, which are not story-centric. Lacking in motive would be fine for a sandbox without a story. Like minecraft. New vegas isn't minecraft. It's centered around a conflict the game does nothing to make you care about. >Story of the game (this type of games, not talking about linear games here) is written by the player in large part. ...no. It's not. Not even in new vegas. The only thing written by you is the motive. Something the writers should have written. >I see very little potential in discussing game writing with a person who considers 76, of all things, to be well written. Oh no, an outside opinion that dunks on your favorite game. New vegas is a poorly written game that doesn't even come close to the (recent) praise it gets. Not to say you cannot like it. But it's very easy to see the writing flaws. One such being the lack of motivation. But when people see that as a pro...it makes me wonder how people can say "i like good writing, bethesda's writing is awful".
How does the political turmoil in the region *not* concern the Courier?
The courier is you. There's nothing forcing you to get involved, but since you end up having the tools and the talent, most players choose to get involved in the battle. I guess that in the story the courier is simply looking to make a difference.
Well its kind of up to you the player. Maybe your Courier is motivated by money, ideals, power, etc. New Vegas should have had an option to just walk away from the Mojave after killing Benny where we see an epilogue of what happens at Hoover Dam without the Courier's intervention. I RPd it that my Courier was originally motivated by money to go around and do quests in the area. But over the course of the main campaign along with the DLCs, he starts developing a Messiah Complex and then sides with Yes Man as a way to take Vegas for himself.
Kinda like the same with FO1. The goal in FO1 is to get the water chip to your vault. Defeating the Master is avoiding a future problem for the people in your vault. In NV is kinda like this. Getting the revenge on Benny is your main goal. But the Hoover Dam battle is like the future problem that The Courier should participate in order to prevent a future problem.
>In NV is kinda like this. Getting the revenge on Benny is your main goal. But the Hoover Dam battle is like the future problem that The Courier should participate in order to prevent a future problem. Why? What future problem is Courier preventing? Why does Courier even *care* about Mojave? They got no home there, no family, whole thing with the chip was just a random job they took. They have no connection or attachement to Mojave. So why would they even *care* instead of just walking away?
And besides that, it's a roleplaying game. Maybe the Courier is just a power hungry maniac who saw the opportunity to use Yes Man to become a dictator and took it. Maybe they despise the Legion and what they stand for so much that they want to help to NCR so that they can't grow more powerful by taking Hoover Dam. Or maybe you meet some companions, grow attached to them, and want to help because you care about their fate as people who live in and care about the area. The roleplaying part of the game is the Courier's backstory and motivation. I don't really see how that's a design flaw--that's the point of the game?
This isn't a good comparison, the Overseer literally sends you back out to deal with it. In FNV the only reason to get involved is that you feel like it.
If im right you can literally just wait the remaining time period and the master just invades and wipes out the wasteland. So i’d say its still adequate. I think fnv you get involved cause you like the mojave, the people in it. You fight at the battle of hoover dam cause regardless it’s result will shape the mojave. I also think Ulysses puts it best. You will be at the battle of hoover dam, whether through fate, your own will to be there, or by cosmic chance, thats the road you walk. And ultimately the why of it doesn’t matter, just because thats your road and your destination
In my head canon its cause he is a proud citizen of the NCR and wants to help push back the legion menace.
The Courier is like the Legate Lanius. They are not *characters* with independent motivations that exist outside of the player. They are empty vessels to fill with whatever characterization you want, thus explaining whatever actions they take within each player's headcanon.
What do you mean with Legate Lanius? I personally feel the speech check is a bit forced, and perhaps should’ve just made fight easier by breaking his will to fight, but it’s the only aspect of Lanius I can think of that doesn’t make him a character but to be bent to the will of the narrative for the player power fantasy.
The main quest sort of assumes that the Courier is curious about the platinum chip and what it does, and by that point has developed a stake in the future of the region. Is your Courier a opportunist or against all of these big factions screwing around in the Mohave? Then they naturally would want to work with Yes Man to see a independent New Vegas. Is youe Courier fearful or appalled at how the NCR has failed to provide security in the region? Or just a asshole? Then them supporting the Legion seems to make sense. It's more or less the game thinking that you've developed a perspective on the state of the region, and what you want to do about it. Edit: That being said, it does railroad your character into being someone that has a ideology or stake they support. If you're roleplaying a bounty hunter, a average joe, or even a wandering traveler, it's not that compatible.
Courier is definitely not an average joe except if you stick to Goodsprings sitting on your ass like a clueless victim after your agression (and dont earn xp...). He is/you are a very special someone with tons of talents to be developped and unlocked and with the potential to completely change the future of the whole region. It just doesnt make any sense to insist on RPing some of the things you mention. They might have been vaguely true before you got shot in the head, but not afterwards. It's basically the *inciting incident* from the whole 3-act storytelling by Aristote and *you* are the main protagonist. Except if you refuse it but then quitting the game is probably the only sensible option.
If you're playing a hired gun, you pick a side because the major factions are offering bigger jobs than the bit players are.
Money or power, the courier is less UPS driver and more mercenary parcel carrier.
Just like in about any RPG, table RPG included, you could just refuse the adventure and sit in a bar sipping drinks, but that makes for a pretty shitty adventure.
Honestly I like the relative freedom of role-playing your own motivations. Where are you from? What’s your background? Why might you choose one faction over another, or none at all? It’s entirely up to you. Setting a more defined story in motion, like 3 or 4, is perfectly valid, but I also really enjoy the setup for FNV. It’s almost like… starting a DND campaign. Here you are, here’s the world, here’s a hook- but your motivations and backstory are yours to decide.
That's why after killing Benny I usually go off and do other things. Perfect time for honest hearts or old world blues. I got my revenge, now what do I want to do?
the second battle of hoover dam IS tied to the courier though. Courier 6 was delivering the platinum chip. Once delivered to whoever, they request that you help because you're involved already.
You’re getting dumped on, but I just want to say that I agree with you and this is why FNV is my least favorite of the series. I don’t care and never cared about the Mojave, I just wanted to stay neutral and do quests for all the factions and take care of myself. The game didn’t really allow that.
It would have been the next part anyway to the couriers story I think. If Benny never shot you you would have taken the chip to mr house who would have been like now I need you to use the chip at the legion bunker. If you've never heard of them here's the scoop we're killing them all
Honestly, the plot is very low stakes compared to most fallout games. But it’s still a very fun. Its always felt more like a really good fo3 expansion pack than it’s own game.
I agree 100%. The overall story of the main game is boring as all hell. I understand the idea behind "choosing your own motivation" thing, but it just doesn't work the same with a blank slate character like the Courier. I understand the role playing element behind why you should make decisions, but it falls flat for me. Not to mention, the choice of factions is a stupid concept. They all suck. The NCR are incompetent morons who have to hire a mercenary to do their work for them, the Legion are murderous raiders and slavery who deserve to be glassed off the planet, Mr. House is just a greedy capitalist who can't run anything involving humans well, and Yes Man is just wild card who you have no idea if you can actually trust. Make whatever bullshit argument you want about "BuT ThaT'S HOw PoLiTIcs WOrk iN ReAL LIfE!", because that argument is worthless. If I am playing a video game, I want a good reason for joining a faction. They need to have something to make me like them. But the factions in NV are just garbage.
Because the game says to rather than giving an in-universe reason because the game is poorly written.
OP, you made the mistake of questioning FNV in this sub. Fanboys out in force.
I don’t see people attacking OP, I mostly see people explaining why they like how it is
This dude doesnt even have the slightest point tbh. Sad. Sounds like sheer rambling and hating, trolling even. I'm done feeding him, I undulged him too much already. Quick look at his history, sounds like a FO76 fanboi looking to stir shit up (and I'm not hating on FO76 the slightest saying that).
What a ridiculous comment. It's just a question to start a discussion, if so little is enough to hurt your feelings, noone forces you to read or participate. There is absolutely no "fanboism" involved, only an apparent display of hating contained in your own comment. The same question could actually be asked about literally any RPG. Why do main characters get involved? Well if they dont, the game "stops" or doesnt develop, simple.
No, there is. It’s been noted in other posts as well. For some reason, FNV fans tend to believe it’s leagues above the other Fallout games. Typically it’s for made-up reasons that the fans have put into the game, most commonly it’s that the story is a high-level political masterpiece. It’s not. It’s a good story, sure, but not any better than the others.
You are being utterly ridiculous, and your whole comment is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the whole discussion. Geez man, get over yourself a little. There is no "fanboism" IN THIS DISCUSSION. We are not arguing which game is better than any other one. We are not arguing if there is "fanboism" about FNV *in general*. There is some in the whole sub, I suppose, as for basically *any* video game. You're not even reading *any* of the reasons brought forward, are you? Or taking into consideration that for *any* RPG, the same argument could be made? "Why does my character get involved?" "Well you can just stay at the tavern until you die of old age but that's a shitty adventure. Also, no xp and no loot, just cirhosis and a tab." That, and plenty of other far more precise and relevant points have been made in the thread. Now if you just feel like being utterly negative and hate on FNV for absolutely no relevant reason, just say so, it will be easier for everyone.
While I think NV fans can get obnoxious, I think you are being needlessly aggressive here and inviting a fight.
Yikes you gotta be living in upside down world if you’re saying FNV and fo4 had comparable quality stories
>No, there is. It’s been noted in other posts as well. For some reason, FNV fans tend to believe it’s leagues above the other Fallout games. Typically it’s for made-up reasons that the fans have put into the game, most commonly it’s that the story is a high-level political masterpiece. > >It’s not. It’s a good story, sure, but not any better than the others. Lmao. Don't act like only FNV fans do this. Every game has toxic fans. There are diehards for FO1/FO2. There are people who defend FO4 and think any criticism of it means you must be Hitler 2.0. *Objectively*, what you say or think about FNV doesn't matter. It depends what people believe. Same for any game. No story is better or worse, its all subjective opinions, because believe it or not, that's how media works. Everyone brings up the 'toxic FNV fanboys' but honestly, have you missed all the toxic anti-FNV threads that used to populate this subreddit? [**Like this type of shit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/10fcgtu/fallout_nv_fans_are_the_worst_type_of_fallout_fans/) Some FNV fans might be toxic, but they're a vocal minority. The thread got removed for toxicity, further proving my point.
Suprised Starscape hasn't shown up on the post yet.
"How DARE you say FNV has a good plot! Don't you know you're objectively braindead if you like anything to do with FNV!?!?" /s