All three of you missed the point.

How so? I honestly feel the reverse to be true. I feel you have missed the point. I feel Softnerds and myself have made fair and neutral opinions, your's seems to be pro Fallout 3 senseless violence and anti-stability. Your post now seems to indicate you refuse to acknowledge you have no defense, which is fine, but theres no need to accuse us of failure when you have given us no reason as to why we have failed.

The absolute bottom line is that F:NV does not make something unrealistic believable.

When I said logic, I wasn't talking about logical within the context of the real world, but if the game universe is logical within itself.
Certainly no game is going to be perfect, but F1, F3 did a much better job than F:NV.

I know I'm not going to convince those of you who are staunch defenders of F:NV's plausability in the Fallout world. Frankly, I just made this thread to convince myself - the more I've read/made responses the more absolutely sure I am of the failings of F:NV to be a post-nuclear simulation.

I'm sure all too many of you are confusing your enjoyment of this game & series with a need to defend it, but you're missing the point that this game does not do what it is supposed to do. We're no longer exploring the true Fallout universe - one of edginess and devestation, one of ramshakle civilization, one filled with disgusting creatures and challenging morality.
You can believe/argue what you want, but the majority feels that F:NV doesn't present a post-nuclear simulation, just some random broken 3rd world country with a few mutants and whatnot.

No no no. We are no longer exploring YOUR OPINION of a true Fallout universe.

Mine and 52% (and counting) of this community's opinion.

Keep on ur road and you're going to be making scrambled eggs for your Fallout kids and go to Fallout college and push Fallout paper at Fallout paper company to pay off your Fallout loan from Fallout bank in Fallout 4.

i think the poll says it all, obsidian did make lots of improvements over fallout 3, they really did, DT, skill/perk/special system, brought back nightkin even though in small numbers, etc however its not very post apocalyptic feeling like FO3 was, i guess bethesda is better at making the right atmosphere, obsidian is too wrapped up in making it "believable", believable isn't fun, FANTASY is fun and the unbelievable is fun, so they really dropped the ball in this area BIGTIME, and thats why over 50% of the people don't feel its post apocalyptic, they took away the most ominous faction of the game "the enclave" and replaced them with ceasers legion , oh they are believable, using spears and macheties, oh its believable its just not fun to fight cavemen who don't shoot back, but back to the main point, bethesda nailed the post apocalyptic world, they may not of done other parts of fallout right, but enemies to fight, game immerision and dungeons to fight in, not just metro tunnels, the tons of buildings like the capitol building, or the roosovel academy, or national guard armory etc all added to the game immersion. so i am looking forward to ESV and FO4, and fortunately bethesda will be making fallout 4.

Oh you silly overdramatic poster you.

So, is the argument now that the gameuniverse should remain (somewhat) static no matter how much time passes?

IMO, that is the one thing that CAN'T be said about FO3. It had many fine qualities but believability within it's game world is where it failed miserably. I find it to be the game's single biggest flaw.

So I guess that means we have zero common ground and there's no point in continuing what would surely be an excercise in futility.

double post

To me,its a loosely based invasion of Iraq

Iraq=Mojave

Allied Soliders=NCR

Iraqis=Legion

The US puppet goverment=Vegas

Choice, mostly. A choice in which skills you will use. A choice how you go through the wasteland.
But as it stands not every place is a pinnacle of civilization and despite the actual size both Fallout 3 and NV the distances are meant to be large, so that things like survival and cannibalism isn't all out there. There are probably hunters and scavenger who use those skills, tribals who traditionally do cannibalism, etc...


Engine limitations, map size, gameplay reasons. And the same reason you didn't seem them in Fallout 3 (and 1), robots have a place in the story (enemies mostly) cars only complicate matters.


Hoover Dam? that big lake behind it. Also you are talking logic by claiming all water should be irradiated 200 years after the war? Fallout 1 had non-radiated water.


Maybe if I was playing Fallout 3. It really feels like you are nitpicking on NV, while ignoring the HUGE GLARING INCONSISTENCIES of Fallout 3 internally and in comparison to 1&2.


So by meta-gaming and deciding you don't want to bother doing it not easy you complain about difficulty. In this day and age of game hand holding, while defending Fallout 3 who's level scaling made all enemies easy and where your character became a master of all trades with all SPECIAL stats at 10.


I agree that the food and water stuff are more of an annoyance, but I take hardcoe for the other features (weighted ammo, healing over time).


No farming in Fallout 3, no seemingly working economy. The trading nexus is a six man town with no defenses and one cow! Only megaton and rivet city seem to make any sense. All towns except Megaton were build ten to thirty years ago it seems. Radiation was everywhere, while Fallout 1 had radiation only in certain places. Pre-war food wasn't just still consumable after all these years, nor is it what all wastelanders seem to eat. It's not looted, in the first decade!!!

I really don't see how you can call Fallout 3 in one breath with Fallout 1 in that regard and than berate F:NV for it's lack of logic. If anything it's more logic than 3 and quite the logical step from Fallout 1 & 2.

No let's say it truthfully. You don't like the atmosphere, clear as that. You like the radiation everywhere, air-bombed feel of Fallout 3. But don't go talking about internal logic of the 'verse, because that point is really weak.


I'd say the numbers are pretty even. And that, though I agree that I like it better when towns are run by merchants, warlords and a regional power doesn't really seem to be everywhere, your vision isn't the only one on what Fallout is supposed to be.
Fallout 1, wasn't set ten years after the war, with you scavenging for survival. It was set eighty years after the war in a region with towns, merchant caravans and a semblance of live. I and many other see it more as an instrument to show these new societies, these differing towns and factions who come up after the war.

And the war happened only 87 (or it was 86) years ago

Fallout 3, 200 years, yet everything is destroyed

No they were dead on. You don't care about FO1 or FO2. All you care about is that the game does not look like FO3. We explain to you that FO3 does not fit with logic, human nature to want to rebuild and improve or lore/canon. It does not fit in the fact there are no plants or trees outside of Oasis. Yet you don't care. "Its not post-apocalyptic" :violin: There is no cut off date for when something is no longer post-apocalyptic.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

believability is boring dude, if you made everything totally believable it would be a super boring game to play i think, fantasy is fun, fantasy is where its at, not "believability" FO3 was way more fun to play than new vegas is, the forums aren't even as busy as when fallout 3 came out, sure lots of people bought the game, but i was playing FO3 for 2 years, and less than 3 months in, new vegas isn't as fun, not as much to explore or do, the main enemy "ceasers legion" is a joke, hardly any supermutants to fight, not a lot to explore, so the game failed in a lot of areas and the fact not as many are into it like FO3 is evidence of it, the fallout forums had way more people for FO3 than with new vegas and at least 50% of the people who have played new vegas don't like ity as much as they did FO3, and not only that even the game site don't rate new vegas all that high and its because obsidian dulled it down, yeah they made a great story and did make some improvements but they went 2 steps forward and 3 steps backward. thats just a fact.

Play FO1 and FO2 and think logically. 200 years after a nuclear war things would not look like they do in FO3.

I don't think anyone is saying the East needs to be as advanced as New Vegas but it should be at least as advanced as FO1 and have some trees and plants.

I think we both know that's hyperbole.


Erm, no, the poll says we're split down the middle. A few percentage points are irrelevant, especially since this forum only represents the small percentage of players that use this forum. Besides, popularity doesn't force something to make sense. I happen to disagree with you here, and my opinion is just as valid as yours. Outside of the gorgeous environments in FO3 the setting was ridiculous. No, realism isn't required, but believability is immersive whether it's realistic or not, and FO3 didn't have it. There are a lot of things I liked about FO3, but the setting (outside of the artwork) wasn't one of them. Even for the just-after-the-war post-apoc setting it was trying to be it wasn't believable, and to me that's a huge flaw in this type of game.


I think that's exactly what's going on. Again, what happens as time progresses in the setting? One of the great things about the setting is the lore and the history. If time doesn't pass there is no history.

"Dude," you are confusing fact with opinion...consistently. No offense, but please stop substituting your personal opinions for facts and statistics. There's also a big difference between realism and believability. Believability comes from consistency within a given context, even if that context is a fantasy. That is important in ANY fictional setting to maintain integrity.

i agree 100 percent with you, but theres no point arguing with these people. if NV was made by bethesda they would be bad mouthing it, picking up on its bad points and dismissing its good points (the exact thing they do with fallout 3) They are stuck in the past with fallout 1 and 2. There are a lot more fallout fans than there was before. and a lot of them couldnt care less about 1 and 2. They just want the games to continue in the same mould as fallout 3

Iraq isn't exactly an indication or being a third world country. Afterall America at one point was a third world country of it's own. And many countries reached that state due to being exploited for easy to take natural resources along with multiple other reasons. And that doesn't necessarily fully represent a country eg. Many african cities resemble American/European cities but that still is a small fraction of a large country/population. Issue in suberbia being the divide between rich and poor and a virtually nonexistant middle class ala Mexico. Of coarse many of these rich are the same oppressors parading as well good people. Getting off topic.

The term third world came during the Cold War so I'm not sure the term could be applied. Not to mention the West and the Mojave area I'd guess isn't exactly representing or up to a Third World standard. It's reaching the point of being a largely ravaged but thriving community but that still represents a small portion of the country we've seen to such conditions. And their conditions and what overall the group can offer in terms of supplies and tech even in New Vegas resemble a militia group like Taliban really.

Overall it is resembling a destroyed country like those destroyed in WW2 that's slowly rebuilding.

As for New Vegas, not yet. Not for the Mojave area anyways. As quite awhile has passed since we've seen the lands that represent the best of the NCR we can't honestly comment on that.

Excuse me???

Or that was a sarcarsm or you really believe in this :spotted owl:

This really isn't becoming a New Vegas vs. 3, Bethesda vs. All topic is it. Back to the main topic guys.

Otherwise this'll get locked fast

I beg your pardon? I'm not defending New Vegas because of Obsidian, I'm defending it because apart from F:BoS, the games are all very good, and alot of arguments are based in prefence, I just try to add a very fair and unbiased opinion, and logic doesn't seem to have it's place in most of these arguments, since you can't make a true point against logic.

Of course it feels like a 3rd world country whats it supposed to feel like after 200 years of destruction? Theres radiation in like 60% of the mojhave. Post nuclear would feel like a 3rd world country just sprinkled in with some radiation poisoning.