I don't mind arguments, so long as people will actually argue logically about the objective merits of the two games. Typically what happens is these threads turn into flames where people insult each other back and forth rather than actually debating, but I don't think that this is inevitable, just common.

It's entirely fine to like Fallout 3 more than New Vegas, it's also entirely fine to like Superman 64 or E.T. for the Atari better than New Vegas. That really doesn't address the issue of which is the better game overall. I typically try to stick to defending my premise that New Vegas is better for xyz reason, and avoid insulting those that disagree (a good policy for any debate topic, really).



My mind is entirely open to being changed about any topic, assuming someone puts forth an argument good enough. And I'm not really asserting that Fallout 3 svcks, just that it's a good game that fell short of being one of the best games of all time because Bethesda made a couple of huge, huge mistakes that just can't be ignored. That isn't me flaming/trolling, it's giving my view on the game (and my reasons, if requested). I'd think Bethesda 'wants' to hear what their major mistakes have been, so they don't repeat them.

FO3 was way better when i came to exploration and combat, it had tons of cool places to explore and fight in, the capitol building both inside and out, the roosovelt academy, lob enterprises, the chryslus building, the statesman hotel, the red racer factory, national archives building, the national guard armory, i could go on and on here, it also had great outdoor locations like la enfant plaza, takoma industrial the mall area and really the entire downtown area, not to mention all the metro tunnels, new vegas doesn't have anything that compares to all that, obsidian did do some things right like a better skill/perk/special system, reputation system, more weapons, weapons mods, voice acting, dialogue but when it comes to enemies to fight and exploring and game immersion, FO3 is way better, new vegas doens't have any complex buildings or structures to get lost in. which is a big bummer.

I think Fallout 3 was better in the way often cited, World Building and attention to world detail but suffered in writing. In reverse Fallout:New Vegas excelled in writing and dialogue, while suffering in world design and exploration.

Think Obsidian and Bethesda need to work on their faults so they can become better at their work. Hence I often say I want Fallout 4 to be written by Obsidian and Developed by Bethesda

Meh, if they are so good at bulding worlds they should ditch the random wasteland exploration entirely and focus on making absolutely awesome cities. :confused:

I thought D.C. was an awesome to explore. :shrug:

I implied going back to map nodes.

So you're implying making about 10-11 ACTUAL cells with about 10-20 random pre-build spawning maps? I like to explore my map, not play a game where it turns into something completely random the next time I visit it. Map Node is an obsolete system that needs to remain dead. It worked well in the old Fallouts, keyword OLD. Let it remain in the past.

Thats my opinion anyway.

A map node system would allow the developers to create a lot of towns, cities and settlements in realistic sizes and realistic distances between each other.
It also allows them to explore a lot of different landscapes.
Like, say there is a fantasy game, how would it look like if it had a giant sandbox map and 1:5 is a land of lava, 1:5 is a swampland, 1:5 is winter land with tons of mountaints, 1:5 is a land of crystals and incredible magic and 1:5 is like the Victorian era?
It would seem like a theme park.
With a map node system on the other hand you could have you winter land and then when moving a couple of miles along the world map you'll encounter the lava world.
It would allow the creative designers a greater world to work with.
And it would allow bigger cities and towns with quests, lore, characters and culture that really makes more of an impact.
Having one big map allowed for them to have "one" city in New Vegas, Primm, Goodsprings and Novac are just pit stops with 1 quest and barely any fleshed out nor at realistic size either.
The old Fallout games, the originals, explored tons of different towns, all with different cultures and power structure.
Map node system is by far not obsolete, in Fallout it's way better than one big sandbox map.
Sure it sacrifices the "where you look you can go" but it allows for greater world building.
Fallout was never about dungeons or scavenging ruins anyway.
/opinion on some parts I guess.

So basically, map node system is part of what Fallout is, Fallout isn't suppose to be Oblivion/Skyrim With Guns.
One big map doesn't work for a Fallout game.
Everything feels cramped up and minimized.

Just use a map-node system like in Arcanum where the areas in between are filled with randomly generated wilderness, dungeons, and enemies. Arcanum only managed the first of those but if you really wanted I'm sure it's all possible on today's engines. Both sides will be satisfied.

I understand where your coming from, but you're using a really oddball example to put it in your favor. Fallout 3 nor New Vegas (well, Mt. Charleston aka Jacobstown might be) were never so varying in appearance to present a need for this. I mean, as I recall, even Fallout had that huge crater in the southeast map corner, and yet when you went there, it was a generic random cell. My main beef with map nodes isnt that it's 'obsolete', it's just that when a developer installs randomly built cells as spacers for 'between travels' then it's an act of laziness in my book. I think Map Nodes should be optional, that way it will appease those who want it, and those who dont. I dont mean slap on the pipboy Fast Travel map, I mean, if they want map node turned on, then it will be implemented per community suggestions. I dunno, theres so many variables in the situation really.


I hate when people use their to opinion to say what Fallout IS.

1. They can't be optional. :/

2. I wouldn't say it's opinion, one part of Fallout was about to explore how humanity rebuilt itself and they included multiple major cities and towns in the old games to show that. One big map can hardly give enough content for this, didn't in FO3 and it didn't in NV.
And if they do give us tons of cities and towns which are fleshed out enough then the map would basically just be one big city with different districts and no wasteland.
One big map doesn't work for a Fallout game. For "just another game" then sure, for an Oblivion clone sure, but as a Fallout game? No, it doesn't.
Look at New Vegas (the city), it's about the size of New Reno but lacks a Shady Sands, Broken Hills, San Fransisco and Klamath.
If the old games could explore more cities with their own kind of justice, production, history and culture then I'd say that it was superior.
The old games had quantity "and" quality with cities.
Don't see how one big map is suppose to be superior in any way except for a ES clone.

Pretty much what Gabriel said. The map-node system was critical in Fallout's design. The map-node system allows the developers to convey a varied and structured world that makes sense. New Vegas made sense for New Vegas's specific region. In such a small territory can you really that much?

Indeed. :thumbsup:



I agree with gabriel.
The recent Fallouts weren't all that varied, but they could've been (to a certain degree) had the devs used the map node system.

Why would randomly generated "spacers" be an act of laziness? They worked in the originals doing exactly what they were supposed to: to depict a wasteland, which the space between the nodes was. There's no need to handcraft areas of mere sand and rock. IIRC, they even took the topography of the map into account (there was a mountain side in the "spacer" if that part on the map had mountains, in the coastline there was coast, etc). The point was that there is "nothing" in between the inhabited areas but wasteland and occasional encounters, and depicting that, the system worked fine.

Now, the nodes themselves, they don't need to hold only one settlement and nothing else. There is a vast array of possibilities to structure them, from one single building to Point Lookout sized portion offering exploration and local sidequests. And having more centralized content would also mean that most of your time (unless you choose otherwise) you spend out of the world map, so it shouldn't become a nuisance (and even if it did, there are possibilities to ease it - establish a trainroute, for example, like Van Buren would've done if my memory serves me). The node system, if done right, prevents the odd feeling that everyone - even enemies - are eachothers neighbors. There's a better sense of scale (and, imo, it's more immersive, to use the buzzword).

As okie said, though, a modernized version of the Arcanum system would probably be the best way of doing it. The best of both worlds. It'd probably require a multi DVD product to contain a map big enough to warrant the system, but what the heck, been there done that - my version of Planescape: Torment has four CD's and it never slowed me down.

Like I said, I just despise the attitude around Map Node supporters. Gabe isn't the first person I've seen to go 'NO IT DOESNT NEED TO BE OPTIONAL. OLD WAY OR NOT AT ALL'. I still think it should be optional, if you like the map node system, you win, if you don't you win. Everyones happy, but almost no one seems willing to accept mutual grounds on anything. Hell if you ask someone who strongly supports Isometric, ask if it should be optional, most would say no. It's like the fact that there are options of the 'new' Fallout style around scares them.

Quoted for truth.

But how do you make a big sandbox map into a map node system?
Especially considering it's FPP/3rdPP and you can see that the next location is just 50 meters away.

That's a good question, but that's not something I can answer, my knowledge of game engines and technical details is very limited. Hell, when Fallout 3 came out, I thought those were the best graphics of the time. Until I read I was wrong in that thought :laugh:

Some interesting thoughts on here.

At the moment, I would side with Fallout 3. I can't say I'm the ultimate Fallout fan, because I came in on the series with Fallout 3, and my experience with that game was amazing. I just enjoyed the whole post-apocalyptic adventure within Fallout 3 and I enjoyed the late night adventures. New Vegas has given me a great story and what not, but for me it's Fallout 3, simply because of the impact it had on me when I first played it.

Well the map node system could be worked differently, there was this guy who did this: http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/4297/falloutmap.jpg
It would allow several towns and cities while still allowing a great deal of exploration.
And hell, in between these areas there could also be random/special encounters as well.

Maybe, but if you count individual squars that are static locations (barring special random encounters) thats only 21 locations. You can try and argue the games pipboy map is bigger sure, but Fallout 3 has alot more unique cells than F2.

Who ever said that Fallout 2 had more cells? :confused:

That picture shows how they could please both sides.

More cells=More to explore=More ambiant atmosphere

Sure, and that can be done with the system presented in gabriels pic.

That depends, if I have to click every grid just to view each cell, that would be tedious as all hell.

You mean, if you have to open the map, click on the node you wish to travel to and travel there to see and interact with, it would be tedious, or...? I'm not sure if I'm reading you right.