exploring : Fallout: New Vegas

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 5:06 am

I guess it wouldn t help if the map was opened becuse they really didn t put anything on what they have.

Back to COMBAT yeah I said it. There s people afraid in this tread to write the word COMBAT, because they think or will get bashed.

The people that most sain people r going to see as as the eneny in their first play through svck at COMBAT. Lore might say Ceasar read books about the Roman Legion, but I can asure u from playing the game he didnt. The Roman Legion brings swords and shields and archers that shoot flaming arrows into COMBAT. When in COMBAT the real Roman Legion closes ranks and protects each other with their shields. No old guard sees any problem with the lack of in game tactics and strength of CL. You have to be mad because thier lore says that copied the once great Roman Legion, but when in COMBAT they run away like little girls. There tactics and equip. r nothing like the Roman Legion. Matter of fact they make the Roman Legion look bad. Any coments on that from and old guard???

The thing that people don't seem to understand that Gamebryo is very limited engine by today's standards. It can't handle what legion is supposed to be in game. It's stated in game that their tactics depend on masses of expendable troops, they are easily taken down from range by firearms but eventually people have to reload and run out of ammo. That's the time when legionaries get the upper hand, they run you down with masses and hack you to little pieces, with the superior close quarters combat training they've had.

Also I have to go with Lusen on this one. Caesar only built a society in Rome's image, he wasn't supposed to emulate all of it. Don't remember any mention of legionaries with shotguns in history books. Caesar's Legion just took the harsh training methods and scaretactics from Rome. His army consists only simple tribals it's just a way to unite the tribes under single banner with simple methods that don't depend on technology.

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:44 pm

You're quoting from No-Mutants? Of course it's all going to be negative.

NMA have FO3 fans as well :rolleyes:

We are derailing this post too much, can we go back to the original subject?

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 5:19 am

That is one of a few things Fallout 3 could have used more of...places to buy and sell stuff. FONV definitely did that better. I didn't mind that I could only side with the good guys in FO3. I wish some of the dialog had been better with better options. I do like being able to choose who to side with in FONV. I just don't think everything about FO3 is negative. I really like the game. And I like FONV as well. I will say that if it wasn't for the companions and their quests I doubt I would still play FONV. Despite it's wonderful dialog I find it boring to read through at times. And I don't find the storyline of the game all that interesting. And I don't like being a bad character who just kills everyone (like someone suggested), so not reading the dialog is NOT an option. This is a personal preference. It doesn't mean the storyline of FONV is bad, it just means it doesn't appeal to me. I'm far more interested in the companion stories and their quests. They seem more challenging to me.

I have to agree and why does everyone make out as if fallout 3 is a pile of turds in there garden it's a brilliant game.And people say in fo3 main story "Ohh why am i being forced to look for my dad who im suppose to care about " but new Vegas does far worse by forcing you to help 1 of the 4 factions risking you're life when there is no incentive to do so in the slightest and why isn't the courier at least curios to his past instead he is a generic rambo worshiper who kills entire factions but doesn't care where he was born or where is parent are for example.But plz let this be the end of the fo3 v fonv saga.

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 1:52 pm

and why isn't the courier at least curios to his past instead he is a generic rambo worshiper who kills entire factions but doesn't care where he was born or where is parent are for example.But plz let this be the end of the fo3 v fonv saga.

Because the Courier is the best kind of character. YOUR character. Anyone who complains s/he has no past lacks any imagination to make up their own story for him/her.

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:18 am

Let's go back to the original topic please - "Exploring", cut out the comparisons and vs posts and see if this will make post limit.

Thanks.

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:39 am

Well you have to accept that the majority of the current fallout fanbase started with Fallout 3. The original fallout fans are actually a minority. Bethesda/Obsidian are a business after all, and must cater to the majority rather than the minority. In the future Fallouts, you can expect a more Fallout 3 feel, with exploring and an exciting game world filled with quests and dungeons with a decent story, as opposed to a brilliantly told story with a more static game world. It's just what gaming has become. I'm not saying it's bad, either, as I consider myself a Bethesda fan more than an Obsidian fan.

i agree, most fallout fans are from FO3 and far more people played FO3 than all the other fallouts combined, and i agree NV gameworld is extremely static and its one of the main reasons so many people have abandoned the game already.

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:32 am

Because the Courier is the best kind of character. YOUR character. Anyone who complains s/he has no past lacks any imagination to make up their own story for him/her.

I know but when it comes to the main quest is when it becomes a little iffy my current character is predator (sci fi film) high sneak uses tesla cannon and throwin weps but if the courier had a little more bk story it would be nice.On topic exploration isn't what obsidian are good at tbh.

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:36 am

I think they did that with purpose. You might havent understand it yet, but Ceasar is crazy. He named the legion after forming a union of tribes and with a complete new warfare he conquered the east. He built a society based on military and slaves ( not very far from how it was when Rome was created ). But still, Ceasar was impressed by Rome and therefore named his "warband" The legion.

No understand just because I say COMBAT in a thread doesn t mean I don t know about in game lore. I talk to everyone in the game until they talk no more. Why would they make them sooo weak in COMBAT and not even use Roman tactics or archers or even high dt Legion like shieds. They have no chance in COMBAT the way the devs implemented them into the game. I m looking for some old gaurd to agree with that. The men don t match the lore. It s ok to say COMBAT too. I know u don t play it just to talk to people.

I love exploring nv & cw

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 3:10 am

the fact that mutants and ghouls were roaming around baffled me more than a fridge full of food. How is this possible?

Don't play stupid, those are explained within the games universe. People not even making a token effort to survive isn't.

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:33 pm

i agree, most fallout fans are from FO3 and far more people played FO3 than all the other fallouts combined, and i agree NV gameworld is extremely static and its one of the main reasons so many people have abandoned the game already.

1.There is no proof of that, we was larger even before the Bethesda times

2, Abandoned it, really?, I can say the same thing about Fallout 3, but I have no proof, do you have it? (people in this forums doesnt count, the fanbase is more that just the Bethesda forums)

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 3:23 pm

Don't play stupid, those are explained within the games universe. People not even making a token effort to survive isn't.

Not playing stupid just being sarcastic.

It's short sighted to think that it is not possible for someone 200 years later, to have occupied said building or house, gone out "EXPLORING" and gotten killed, thereby leaving all their food and supplies behind. So the fact that I find food in an abandoned building does not bother me one bit.

In the real world this is a valid possibility.

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 3:19 pm

Not playing stupid just being sarcastic.

It's short sighted to think that it is not possible for someone 200 years later, to have occupied said building or house, gone out "EXPLORING" and gotten killed, thereby leaving all their food and supplies behind. So the fact that I find food in an abandoned building does not bother me one bit.

In the real world this is a valid possibility.

It would if they left any trace of them selves there, but in may cases in FO3 they've been empty since the bombs dropped. Just sitting there, many times only a few hours away from settlements. FO3 goes to lengths to establish that everyone gets by with scaving from the wastes. Yet, there's absolutely tonnes of stuff laying around everywere, that "only you" ever find since the bombs dropped.

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:40 am

It would if they left any trace of them selves there, but in may cases in FO3 they've been empty since the bombs dropped. Just sitting there, many times only a few hours away from settlements. FO3 goes to lengths to establish that everyone gets by with scaving from the wastes. Yet, there's absolutely tonnes of stuff laying around everywere, that "only you" ever find since the bombs dropped.

I guess I'm OK with it. There are other things that bother me more. In both games.

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:46 pm

Nothing to do with exploration and so I apologise, but...

1.There is no proof of that, we was larger even before the Bethesda times

Please understand I say this not out of partisanship but just as a stickler for accuracy, but that's not really true. http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2008/11/04/fallout-3-outsells-all-previous-fallout-games/1

Fallout 3 is doing pretty well for itself it seems. According to recent sales figures from GfK Chart-Track Bethesda's foray into the post-nuclear genre has sold almost 60 percent faster than the studios last title, Oblivion.

What's more, Fallout 3 is currently topping the sales charts on all platforms it was released on and has outsold all of the previous Fallout games combined, including the lack-lustre spin-offs Brotherhood of Steel and Fallout Tactics.

Now take that with a pinch of salt by all means, but think about it and it's reasonable, given the size of the PC gaming audience in the late nineties versus the combined userbase of console and PC players today. It's a much, much, much bigger market these days. And think of the marketing budgets involved then and now. Were there TV ads for the first two games? There were for FO3.

Again, I'm not cheerleading here, but the reality is, for good or ill, the majority of players probably were introduced to the series by Bethesda.

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:13 am

It would if they left any trace of them selves there, but in may cases in FO3 they've been empty since the bombs dropped. Just sitting there, many times only a few hours away from settlements. FO3 goes to lengths to establish that everyone gets by with scaving from the wastes. Yet, there's absolutely tonnes of stuff laying around everywere, that "only you" ever find since the bombs dropped.

There s bad stuff near or in alot of these places you speak of in fo3. That leads to COMBAT to even get to those items. The wastelanders if fo3 any have got killed if they tried it. Tenpenny tower Cantaberry (sp?) Commons Rivit City, Greyditch, Underworld r perfect examples of people moving to structure in fo3. Megaton I think they just liked it there. It was built had walls had lore. I love exploring!!!!

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 5:21 pm

Nothing to do with exploration and so I apologise, but...

Please understand I say this not out of partisanship but just as a stickler for accuracy, but that's not really true. http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2008/11/04/fallout-3-outsells-all-previous-fallout-games/1

Now take that with a pinch of salt by all means, but think about it and it's reasonable, given the size of the PC gaming audience in the late nineties versus the combined userbase of console and PC players today. It's a much, much, much bigger market these days. And think of the marketing budgets involved then and now. Were there TV ads for the first two games? There were for FO3.

Again, I'm not cheerleading here, but the reality is, for good or ill, the majority of players probably were introduced to the series by Bethesda.

Probably, but some people knew Fallout even before Bethesda announced Fallout 3, we dont exactly know how larger was the fanbase after and before,

Also, Tactics was a lackluster? thats new for me, The Burned Games was the bad thing here

Why this thread is even open yet anyway?

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 3:49 pm

i agree, most fallout fans are from FO3 and far more people played FO3 than all the other fallouts combined, and i agree NV gameworld is extremely static and its one of the main reasons so many people have abandoned the game already.

You have to realise that more people have computers now, then back in the late 90s and Fallout was only for PC back then. So your argument is crap. I know its hard to believe that not everyone had computers just 14 years ago and console gaming was still some what new.

The Originals still have a large dedicated fan base after all this time. Also New Vegas out sold Fallout 3 so therefore logic would say more people played New Vegas then Fallout 3 and the original copies are still flying off the shelves and being downloaded from steam and other sights (For a price but its super cheap).

Alot of people on here, started out playing Fallout 3 and decided to play the originals and they love them. Gives them a better understanding of Fallout and a great appreciation for New Vegas.

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:17 am

A lot of people on here, started out playing Fallout 3 and decided to play the originals and they love them. Gives them a better understanding of Fallout and a great appreciation for New Vegas.

I played Wasteland. So, pipe down, newbie.

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 6:41 am

I miss exploring. Unfortunately, going back to Fallout 3 is near-impossible when New Vegas plays so much better.
I also miss being able to sneak around. Sneaking in New Vegas isn't really as useful as in F3, mainly because there are more RPG "segments" than shooting ones if you aim for good conclusions - which makes perfect sense, but I miss just running around and blowing raiders up. I kinda miss the Super Mutants, too. And feral ghouls. Not to mention exploring unfamiliar territory. There's still a good portion of the F3 map - and game in general - I never saw, but I had reason in F3 to wander around. Not so in New Vegas, wherein you have several subquests you should be doing and a nice big highway you can run along to get to each one. And invisible walls. Perhaps I even miss the metro tunnels. I ought to be ashamed of myself.

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:42 pm

i agree, most fallout fans are from FO3 and far more people played FO3 than all the other fallouts combined, and i agree NV gameworld is extremely static and its one of the main reasons so many people have abandoned the game already.

More people played and bought FNV, so ha!!!

But I don't understand what this static game world thing came from. It sounds like an excuse to make Fallout 3 seem better. Tell me how FNV is more static than FO3. Both had spawn points am I correct?

Also, how do you know many people abandoned the game? Judging from the FO3 forums, more people have left that piece of junk.

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:58 am

i agree, most fallout fans are from FO3 and far more people played FO3 than all the other fallouts combined, a

That however, is a very big-mouthed assumption. Care to back it up?

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 3:47 pm

I played Wasteland. So, pipe down, newbie.

oooooooo...so.

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:49 am

Also, how do you know many people abandoned the game? Judging from the FO3 forums, more people have left that piece of junk.

First off, I'm not saying more people abandoned New Vegas or anything like that.

However: Saying "judging from the Fallout 3 forums more people have left that piece of junk" is no better than what he ("he" being "yellowdwarf") intially said and carries no more merit. The loss of activity on either forum is not a basis not should it ever be for how much people liked or played a game. The Fallout 3 forums losing activity should be expected taking into account how long the game as been out and considering the fairly recent release of New Vegas. People eventually run out of things to talk about. Likewise, the initial boom of activity on the New Vegas forums and its "losing steam" (compared to what it originally was) does not reflect people's feelings towards the game, its been out for awhile now.

In any case, this thread has devolved greatly from what I imagine it was originally intended to be and has erupted into yet another flame war over which game people think is better. Pointless bickering in other words.

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:24 am

More people played and bought FNV, so ha!!!

But I don't understand what this static game world thing came from. It sounds like an excuse to make Fallout 3 seem better. Tell me how FNV is more static than FO3. Both had spawn points am I correct?

Also, how do you know many people abandoned the game? Judging from the FO3 forums, more people have left that piece of junk.

I want to make a statement about you're first sentence "More people played and bought FNV, so ha!!!" when did this turn into ANOTHER fonv v fo3 thread he was just correcting someones false info of saying that the fan base was bigger pre Bethesda wich is true "so ha!!!" and of course more people have left fo3 it's been out far longer games don't last forever do you have no common sense "so ha!!!".
People should give Bethesda a little credit for reviving a dead franchise to such a high standard .And on game critics(combines reviews from all major sites) Fo3 has a general higher rating than fonv (i agree reviews mean nothing but if you wanna wave the statistic stick then there you go) "so ha!!!".

» Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:48 am

oooooooo...so.

Precisely.