Let me start out by saying I love fallout new vegas more then F3. So do not in any way think that my opinions are biased. Plus, I have spent about 50 hours on this game, and have found SO many locations, and have two profiles: a level 20 and lvl 19.

Now then, tell me, if you really think the maps are the same size in NV and F3 then you are right! But at the same time you're wrong! Here's why: the maps are basically the same size, BUT you can't go where the map says you can! Jacobstown is the farthest west you can go (besides charleston cave) and the farthest north you go is shortly passed new vegas and nellis airsforce base. Sooooooo much WASTED space.

Now, for the people that say there is more locations, READ THIS: there is! But most of them are worthless, and are seconds from each other (running time) and I've been in so many worthless caves which I thought for sure might have something good to loot, or how many abanded homes (which I will say are important if you want to use them as a home for instant fast travel), or worthless enemy spawns.

I hope they at least let you access the west with Future DLC. (Btw, in my other thread I listed DLC spots such as a train station like the one that leads to the pitt..) nevermind.. anyway, take all this into consideration, and before you reply to someones thread about how small it is, think about this.

I've been exploring for 60 hours now. I have never once thought "Hrm, not as big as DC". I've only got half the map discovered, too.

I agree, there is a lot of wasted space but at the same time the content of the game is much better. It is a trade off and I prefer NV to FO3. I would like to see that dead space put to some use though and have a lot of those invisible walls removed. I'm curious why they don't have cavern paths that lead through the mountains to dead space as short cuts... Might be something I may try and implement in a mod. Like south of the north eastern ranger base, there is a dead end with reaver ghouls that can use a cavern leading down toward the river. Pissed me off when I realized I couldn't go any further south and that there was nothing in that direction to begin with.

So what if New Vegas has worthless locations? Fallout 3 had worthless too. Nobody's saying all of New Vegas' locations are the Repconn Test Site. But Fallout 3 still had crappy grocery stores and the subway system.

I definitely thought immediately that the map felt smaller while actually playing the game and going from one side of the map to the other.

What I want to know is if anyone has actually sat down with the math and figured out the scale and measured the *playable, explorable* area of both maps (since there is so much blocked off area in NV map :shakehead:) in both vanilla games (no DLC).

By the way, I do agree that regardless of the size, content is more important, and so far I am very much enjoying the content. When I finish the game (which will still be quite a while), I'll be able to better gauge how I feel about the game as a whole comparing the MW to the CW.

So the size question is somewhat of an academic interest for me.

One man's waste is another man's treasure. I've got no dog in this race, and I love both games, but to me the BEST places were the grocery stores and subway system, and other mundane places. If Fallout 3 had an official hardcoe mode where you had to eat, drink and sleep, I would definitely prefer FO3 over FNV for the feeling of scraping out a living by raiding grocery stores and being a cannibal and braving the subways looking for rad away and cram and eating cockroaches.

Why? To what end? To stand from their desk triumphantly and proclaim: "Hear me, mortals! I have discovered the truth and shall grant you the privilege of my divine knowledge! The New Vegas map is 47.538 Square miles smaller than Fallout 3!"

You're asking a meaningless question. 'Is the map the same size' is completely worthless compared to 'is the game as fun'.

I sort of feel like I'm playing in a bowl sometimes (like when I'm trying to climb a cliff), but at the same time all that "wasted" space is such a boon for modders.

I don't feel under-entertained so I'm good with it. At this point the cost of my entertainment on this game is like $2/hour and
steadily decreasing, so I got my money's worth and I haven't even beaten it yet. :3

Lots of wasted space in the game. Not as bad as fallout 3, but bad.

All that extra space will probably be filled in, with the first dlc.

Where was the wasted space in Fallout 3? I cant recall 1/3 of the entire map being blocked off in Fallout 3.

Spoken by the man with a deity in his screen name. It would be nice trivia, but you do have a point. I found both games to be quite fun, so comparing map size at least tells you whether or not FONV has a similar exploration feel as FO3. I found myself hiking all over that place.

i don't get why people are calling it "wasted space". every notable area in Fallout 3 is in the east or the south; the north and west are almost completely empty, apart from rocks and a couple pointless dungeons. instead of doing that AGAIN, Obsidian opted to put 90% of the interesting places in the game around the vicinity of the major highways, resulting in a) a world that looks and feels a LOT more natural and alive, and B) less mindless slogging through empty desert and molerat/radscorpion/protectron fights just so you can enter a building that contains nothing but three raiders and a teddy bear.

yeah the invisible walls are annoying in some places - i was trying to take up a sniper position in a burned-out building to drop some Fiends last night only to find that the building i wanted to use was sealed off, even though i was in the perfect position to jump into it from an adjacent building - but would you guys really rather have even more empty wasteland with nothing but rocks and dirt and a random enemy?

in terms of locations, no - New Vegas does not have more to explore. Bethesda makes games where you explore - that's their strength, that's the one thing they're good at, the one thing that makes them truly stand out. Obsidian doesn't. Obsidian makes games where you decide. but if you count exploring characters, exploring viewpoints and politics and psychology - it has more than enough.

Of course it's meaningless, but instead of all these threads where people say "it's larger" and "no, it's smaller" and "what about all the inaccessible areas" etc., you can then end all that useless debating by providing a clear and solid answer.

Facts are good in addition to subjective opinions. The quests, dialogue, characterization, story are better than FO3 is all subjective. It's great to make those points, but if you then also have some facts, it's a more balanced argument.

Most of the wasted space in fo3 was in boarded up buildings and some ruble in the dc area if i recall. Other wise you could pretty much go anywhere on that perfect square of a map in fo3, there was a way not always easy but there was a way. You could always get around ruble most the time buy going in the subways.

I think the map size is fine, my only complaint is that the pipboy shows you are only using half the map. Including the unplayable western half is just stupid. However, for PC users, this sets up space for some rather, possibly, kick-ass mods.

Whats makes new vegas so much better over fo3 surface map wise? What is it about the landscape thats so much of an improvemnt over fo3?

This.

I hope DLC fills that space out. I've been totally dissappointed trying to explore the far reaches of the map....becuase I can't even travel there. An invisible wall stops me an epic distance from the edge of the map.

well to be honest i think th map size is jsut right i dont understand why everyone has bad thigns to say they make the game in a way so they leave room for the public to have fun in making new thign of it how can u build a new town if they had towns everwhere they jsut leave it open for us to fll it in i think it is the rigth size and a great game

Even if the map itself isn't larger than Fallout 3, it feels larger because there's more distance between important locations like cities (probably because there are more than two cities in NV, unlike F3).

Most (if not all) of Fallout 3s places had at least something of interest like a skill book, bobblehead, unique weapon, interesting backstory or some sort of quest involvement. There are places in FNV with literally nothing but junk misc items like bent tin cans and empty bottles. A few ive found dont even contain that.

Theres just no reason to get out there and explore deep into the wastes because theres nothing there. Just stick to the roads and you will find almost all the content the game has.

The map is a little deceptive because whole areas aren't accessible. There is more than enough content though.

There is only 1 word I need to use for describing how much better NV is than FO 3........ Tabitha.

There's probably a reason for a part of the map not being accessible for the time being.