fo3 was my first fo ah brings back fond memories anyways nv is a good game yeah not many things to kill in wastes but overall a good game thats why i'm getting pc vers for mods that add more to the game zombie apoc here i come heheheh

Thread Starter.....




(My guess)

i voted on all three

Enemies, yes, specifically humanoids with good armor and weapons and robots (tho i'm sorta glad there aren't waste wandering robots like in FO3). Fiends and Supermutants are the only humanoids that respawn iirc, and not that many either

Locations, not needed as much, but would like more with more humanoids in them. Idk, i think i just dislike fighting cazadors, deathclaws, and geckos... they are SO BORING

Random Encounters, sure, why not? adds more to the game, and i'm sure they could have made some truly unique and funny ones for Wild Wasteland

Perhaps, but if adding some random content here and there around the wasteland is all you'd need to do to make NV on-par excitement-wise I'd say that NV's wasteland is a more thoughtful, crafted world, albeit less full of stuff. :shrug:

...and this is why I dislike Bethesda and the direction they took with Fallout 3.

I never understood why Bethesda bought the Fallout IP in the first place. They only thing I can think of are that their writers/designers had very little ideas on their own but liked the idea to make a PA game. They could replace the few Fallout references and mechanics from F3 and called it something else. Nothing of value for the now Fallout 3 fans would be lost. Obsidians idea to squeeze in the old characteristics and actually RPG elements back into Fallout was a bad idea to begin with, as it confused probably a lot of their F3 crowd now. It may be all forgotten when F4 with fancier graphics and more gore will be announced by Bethesada.

@carlog107
When you want to play something F3 like you may like Fallout: Tactics for PC. It's old but pretty much the 2D predecessor of Fallout 3. Lots of Action, lots of loot, not much talking, simple quest, fun random encounters and no geckos (I believe).

In FO3, it seemed like there were more...characters. Not just people, but wild, extravagant characters. There were so many things that just made you laugh. The junkies in the Capitol Wasteland were funny, the junkies in the Mojave are kinda sad.

Overall, I think NV has a more solemn tone. There are still plenty of things to laugh at, but it feels much more serious in the long run. At the beginning of FO3, you're a baby. At the beginning of NV, you get shot in the head. I think that's a pretty good symbol for the way the two games play out as well.

NV being more 'concentrated' gives it a feeling that it is a busier place, and it really would be. I would have liked to have seen more action in the casinos though.

Depends what you expect to gain from playing the game. I too made the mistake of hoping this new game would be similar to what I loved about FO3 (I thought Bethdesa captured a post apocalyptic setting better than any other game of this type at the time) and therefore I was so so dissapointed. Over 300 hrs later it still isn't FO3 but it's nice to play a game where you can interact a little bit more with characters and wander around a tame & pretty looking wasteland.

Personally I prefer the harsh, bleak, grey, meaner looking environment Bethdesa created but as I have said before it depends on personal choice.

I'd have to agree that FO3 was more like that, and I do like the larger story and choosing sides in NV. But I also like killing things, I just want to know why I'm killing them and not just random bug hunts with enemies comming out of the blue. And I do like exploring, because it compliments a good story. And I like running into side stories that I never knew about. Finding loot? I actually prefer harder to find loot, and loot for a reason. For instance, I think you shouldn't be able to buy gatling lasers, the BoS should use them and if I want to add one to my loot, I need to either get in good with them or attack them. Plus that would also make more sense, considering they're supposed to have superior weapons and tech yet I can buy better weapons than they ever cary on my own.

So I sort of want to see them both: a central story that takes me over a more spread out map, some areas that I've to hunt down through dialogue and the like, rather than just following a quest marker, so that I have a reason to explore. And add more enemies to places like camp golf (or at least make it so they come out and join the fight when I start attacking, instead of sleeping through all the explosions), so that you have to think twice about attacking some things.

If it was mine to do, I'd probably say focus on story like NV, because the other stuff is much easier to add later with DLC.

Locations, mini encounters are not my favourite thing in the world...

New Vegas is far, far from being "happy", especially in comparison to Fallout 3. In Fallout 3 there was always a sense of hope that despite the apocalypse the world could be made a better place; heck the main theme of the game was about bringing hope to the wasteland through sacrifice. In contrast there is no hope in New Vegas; no matter what you choose to do in the end this doesn't change. New Vegas focuses on the darker side of humanity, its lust for war, and how no matter what happens we as a species will keep repeating the same mistakes. Sure it looks bright and colorful on the surface, but the actual core of the game creates a far from cheerful atmosphere.

Fallout 3 looks dark, but the actual content is fairly lighthearted and colorful whereas New Vegas looks more colorful but the content is darker. Both games create a dark atmosphere in their own way.

I agree with you Talonfire that the vast majority of resolutions are bitter sweet at best.
However on one playthrough I did manage to get an almost perfect happy ending ( no spoilers ).
Only one tiny phrase on one epilogue slide was cautious about one tiny detail, which that single slide itself discarded by the words that proceded it.

However it takes work and thought, just running through the game looking for the best way, often ruins the happy ending.
As much as doing a bad guy playthrough.

My mate made a mod like that actually :blink:

"AAAAAAAAAARGH RRRUUUUUN ITS A DEATHCL- what the **** is that a SKIRT?" - then death, cause you stood still.

Warning this post is very long and may contains *spoilers*



I agree that NV needs more 3-way 4-way battles that was in FO3, I miss those battles between me, Sucuritron, super mutant, and a random person that usually decides to join in.

People are complaining about stuff FO3 has and new vegas hasnt, But what about the stuff that NV has and FO3 doesnt.
Almost every building u can go into has a backstory to it if you look around a bit and dont go in there just to loot.

The companions can acually put up a fight againts most of the stronger creatures. :flamethrower:

There are acually quite alot of places and creatures for a desert, you just got to find the right places(old nuclear test site ambushed me with about 10~20 ghouls around 500~1k exp total in just one place ). :gun:

There was a few bugs in NV and still are and some still havent been found yet (No game is perfect). :brokencomputer:

Killing npc's effect the game more, which make u think on your own actions before you do them (you can lose/gain access to more places/quests/items/story lines), In FO3 i could destroy a entire town and hardly anything would be effected.

hardcoe is there for a reason, If u find the game too easy or boring then kill all the NPC's in hardcoe and see how long you can survive. :dead:

If you like power armour there is now a few more factions to get it from (not just BoS).
Thats about all can can think of so far.