Yeah, Obsidian's writing on Bethesda's world... :drool:

I know, and again i got to strap on my T-51b armor, and play voluntary crowd control, regardless of my own feelings in the matter.

Que the Ron Perlman quote while i get my gauss rifle..... :gun:

I say Bethesda's dungeon building in Obsidian's world. Bethesda is great at building dungeons and having stuff to explore, but Obsidian is better when it comes to settlements and their influence on each other.

I could go either way. Bigger, not necessarily more dungeons would help New Vegas.

Very true. There were some golden dungeons in New Vegas, like Vault 11, but a lot of the dungeons are small short mob fests.

In contrast I feel NV did better with cities and settlements, and their influence on each other.

i agree, i gave new vegas a chance, i did like certain things they did, the reputation system, better skill/perk system, more weapons, more quests, that was all cool, but FO3 is so much more than just a bunch of weapons and quests, its a more dynamic world with lots of things to explore and good combat all over the map, good dungeons to explore, lots of random type events, stuff new vegas just doesn't have, the mechanist and antagonizer are funny, so are the robots who talk smack to you, especially in the national guard armory, thats funny stuff.. FO3 you had to be paying attention when you cruised around the map, new vegas is like taking a sunday stroll, other than a few spots with deathclaws and cazedores most of the map is empty, the entire bottom of the map, the 3 or 4 large dry lake beds, come on, there's just not much going on, there's not one random event on the map. people who lov e new vegas say, oh its not about that, its about the story, well the story in new vegas isn't that great, its pretty basic, it ain't better than FO3's story. the main story quests in FO3 were a lot better, waters of life, finding the geck, who dares wins, galaxy news radio, those were good quests.

darn it i lost my FO3 disc :sadvaultboy:
fortunately its only 20 bucks for a great game wonder why FNV is 50 bucks also the price dropped for NV pretty fast within 1 month

I see people who dislike New Vegas come to the New Vegas forum as well. :rolleyes:

There are tons of Fallout: New Vegas haters in the New Vegas boards. They all complain about how it's not easy enough and how it actually requires thinking rather than using V.A.T.S. every three seconds to eliminate randomly spawning Raiders.

Didn't want to say anything about the haters comment. They would've just dismissed it.

this is the thing, for bethesda fans who love exploring, good enemies to fight, immersive environments, lots of random encounters etc, fallout 3 is better, for people who don't like exploration, no dungeons or large comlex buildings, and don't like combat very much and are more into the "story" they prefer new vegas. so thats pretty much how i see it. bethesda games have a wider appeal thats why they're games are so well receieved, you really don't find a lot of bad reviews on a bethesda game, except for here in this forum, lots of bethesda bashers here.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
I wouldn't blame the OP if he never comes back.

And your anolysis is poor as usual West. As we've said a hundred times we don't mind combat. We just don't want ludicrous amounts as there was in F3. The fact I have to kill an army to get anywhere in D.C. is absurd.

As we've said before again. We like dungeons, but that shouldn't be the focus of the game.

Ok, now that i am done playing for a bit to relieve my stress, can we get back on topic please, and not degenerate into a NV/FO3 bash fest again.

It's not going to happen unfortunately, it's human nature to try and assert something is better than something else even though it can't be proven

I can at least try..... :shrug:

Even as a person who feels New Vegas is vastly superior to Fallout 3, I am open to going back (VERY temporary) if an ultra high quality quest mod draws my attention. I check Fallout 3 nexus occasionally, but nothing ever draws me in.

and I wish your efforts would come to fruition, it's tiresome watching these debates have the exact same arguments :sadvaultboy:

You and me both, i just had a major logical vent rant, and already i got bashed for it. :sadvaultboy:

I beg to differ; the amount of random encounters in Fallout 3 made perfect sense given the setting. The landscape being filled with vicious mutated animals and raider/mutant gangs is perfectly logical. In any case you get in far more fights fast travelling between locations in FO2 than you do in FO3; do you take exception to that?

Absolutely not. I could fast Travel from Navarro to Vault City (more or less one side of the map to the other) and not encounter A SINGLE enemy most of the time. This is on normal difficulty, too.

In F3, it makes absolutely no sense that you'd see more Raiders than Wastelanders.

bah you people and things having to make sense, its a game a fictional game, it was fun and frankly i didn't care much for the way quest were written, as long as the game was fun and entertaining i would play it for hours. FNV had a little bit of too much talking and less awesomeness :flamethrower:

How so? The DC wasteland is totally lawless; in that kind of environment raiders and gangs would thrive. It's not like FO1, 2 or NV where the area was dominated at least to a degree by established settlements and a rudimentary government.

At least in my experience, I got jumped fairly frequently in FO2, but that's just me.

True, but here's the thing. The difference between traveling between nodes and simply going across D.C. is that in Fallout 2 you covered hundreds of miles between point A and point B. In Fallout 3, it's every block.

If you scale it, it's not nearly every block. While I will grant you that it is still quite frequent, the entire city is supposed to be crawling with raiders, BoS members and especially mutants.