Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
The intro from the Fallout movie could be a nice set piece for a game too I think. It begins with a panning shot over a pre-war city, before revealing that its being taken from a train car moving across it. From inside the car the main character and others dressed in a pre war style mule about a...pre war fashion. Eventually however, the car stops. The pre war skyline fades to black, to be revealed to have been just a video, whilst the car was only moving along on a short rail segment. The whole thing was just an imitation of pre war life for Vault Dwellers to help stave off the claustrophobia/whatever of living in a bunker for the rest of their lives.

What movie is this? Only one I ever heard of was Nuka Break, and I don't remember that starting off like this.

I could never enjoy New Vegas as much as 3. First and foremost, the many crippling glitches that rendered your game unplayable that still haven't been fixed to this day. Then there was the lack of adventure that 3 presented; a huge portion all around the outside of the map has nothing in it. The story also was very linear and thus made the game a lot more linear. Sure you chose a side from many, but you always ended up in the same places and the game tended to push you onward to the next quest, rather than the big-scape 'out-on-your-own' style of 3. But I suppose those were the styles that suited each game; 3 made you feel lost in the wasteland, whereas NV had the direction of a returning society.

 illuknisaa wrote:
I'm pretty sure the parts of maps which didn't have anything were walled off.

They're not.

 illuknisaa wrote:
New Vegas is more linear?

Fo3: go to megaton, go to dj dude (you have to use pretty much the same route), go to rivet city (it makes sense to use same route), go to "weird old man wants to be a little girl" -land, go to rivet city (again), go to "town full of kids living next to large super mutant cave", oh noes enclave got you, goto rivet city (this time with giant robot, also you have no option of using different route)

nv: find benny, join up with house, ncr, ceasar or yourself, goto ceasars camp, goto different factions in nevada to ask their help (or not, you can fail too), finish things up with the damn (depends on whom you did join with)

Except in NV the end of one quest always leads you by the hand right to the start of the next one; even if you turned off quest markers you would be led right to where you needed to be. In 3 you had to journey across the whole scape of the Wasteland following the main quest.

Firstly, no it doesn't look decently populated at all. That map clearly shows what I mean; everything is concentrated to the center and a huge portion of the map around the edges is bare. I've explored them in game too; there's nothing out there, not even enemies. Rather pointless really.

As for how the quest system is bad, I've already said how; because it makes the game more linear. And it differs from Fallout 3 because for half of the quests in the main story you need to travel half way across the wasteland several times over and explore new areas. There's no incentive to explore the game world unlike in Fallout 3, and for the record, I've tested it in both games. I comfortably completed NV in two days also, completely, that was of course on the 5th attempt to get it to finish without some silly glitch corrupting the save file or making the game unplayable.

In New Vegas you start things out in the suburbs and are almost immediately sent to the Strip and everything after that is either in NV itself or in locations right next to it, bar the trip down south to Caeser's place. In 3 after you've gotten to Megaton you have to trek half of the winding city to find 3 Dog, and then the other half of the city to get to Rivet City before you finally have to go back off into the desert to find dad.

As for the choice of New Vegas, with the exception of the very end none of those choices are of much consequence except thematically as the locations you go to and what you ultimately do on each quests is mostly the same. Sure this is no different in Fallout 3, but as I've said, 3 at least requires some adventure and trekking to get it done, making it more a quest than a chore.

YMMV, and some may prefer what NV brought to the table, but it was a game in a post-apocalyptic adventure series that had very little adventure and also very little upgrades compared to its predecessor. It wasn't a bad game at all, not by any stretch of the imagination, and is one of my favorite games, but it could have been so much more if they didn't rush it, and so 3 is where I will always go back to, and not NV.