Empty space in Fallout: New Vegas

Post » Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:48 am

Dlc

Console
User avatar
Joanne Crump
 
Posts: 3457
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:44 am

Post » Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:36 am

Console


Dlc have only been released on console so far.
User avatar
Amanda savory
 
Posts: 3332
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:37 am

Post » Fri Apr 10, 2009 5:34 am

Dlc have only been released on console so far.

By DLC i thought he meant mods. Meh. :facepalm:

Anyways, only the Xbox 360 have got DLC so far (damned Microsoft). And that svcks.
User avatar
Cheryl Rice
 
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:44 am

Post » Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:56 am

I can't believe how much whining the fact that the map is not a perfect square has brought. <_<


Confusing the map with the area. F3 had a square map & a square area. F:NV has a square map and an irregular area. The map is the area, the menu is not the meal. Perspective.
I sort of understand why people expect a square map (it's a sequel to game with a square map) but I don't understand why it ruins their day so much. I don't remember anyone complaining about Oblivion's weird irregular map. This doesn't seem any different, plus it has actual physical barriers at the borders instead of invisible walls and magic messages.
User avatar
asako
 
Posts: 3296
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:16 am

Post » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:54 am

So, this has been pissing me off for quite some time now. Before you begin writing, thinking, or even thinking about writing, have a look at this wonderful picture:

http://i53.tinypic.com/2u7q3j7.png

Do you think that it is okay that 38,2271% of the map is unreachable? (yes, i counted the squares).

Also, what could they have done to use that empty space?

Oh, and here is a picture of Fallout: 3's map to compare:

http://i56.tinypic.com/2r3fqpu.png


Point well made my friend. I was thinking about that, that it would be cool if there more locations out there in the Barren wastes on the edges. For example that could more of Deathclaw country or something and only the bravest of Dwellers go out for big game hunting or something like. Who knows, anything is better than just open space with no reachable locations...
User avatar
Lalla Vu
 
Posts: 3411
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:40 am

Post » Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:07 pm

To Op visit Canyon wreckage, it looks like a path between the mountain range but you cant get through it, but it has to do with the Lonesome Road DLC
User avatar
Justin Hankins
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:36 pm

Post » Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:41 pm

I suppose this was my largest grievence with F:NV. When I started the game I was presented with this huge ass map including massive swaths of Arizona and I'm thinking,
"Killing Legion time will be fun as hell!" but then I'm 50 hours into the game and realize most of Arizona is just [censored] empty. This is one of the best games I've ever played but things like that really broke the flow for me.
User avatar
Samantha Jane Adams
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:00 pm

Post » Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:14 am

To Op visit Canyon wreckage, it looks like a path between the mountain range but you cant get through it, but it has to do with the Lonesome Road DLC


Yeah, too bad there is a door there, and we will get transported to a new small cell.
User avatar
Shannon Lockwood
 
Posts: 3373
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:38 pm

Post » Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:39 pm

IMO, using the map size as gameplay criteria is a moot point. Unless we can establish the true size of the FO3 vs. FNV map grid we're comparing apples to oranges, running the risk of eventually reaching an inch of nowhere.

True, the DC Wasteland seems subjectively larger, and the additional underground Metro system fairly settles the argument of which game has more map content. Nevertheless, the question of a larger map automatically equating to a better gameplay experience remains open to discussion.

Notwithstanding the map size, the preference of one game over the other remains a totally subjective experience. It's an issue which every player must decide for themselves.
User avatar
A Dardzz
 
Posts: 3370
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:26 pm

Post » Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:49 am

Yeah, too bad there is a door there, and we will get transported to a new small cell.

Or if they do make the dllc just remove the door
User avatar
+++CAZZY
 
Posts: 3403
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:04 pm

Post » Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:39 am

Yeah, too bad there is a door there, and we will get transported to a new small cell.

Or if they do make the dllc just remove the door
User avatar
Stacyia
 
Posts: 3361
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:48 am

Post » Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:43 am

Maybe there is. But that doesn't change the fact that it is empty space.


It doesn't, it did answer your question "do you think that it is okay that 38,2271% of the map is unreachable?" though.

I think it must be for either dlc or full on expansion pack (there's so much it's hard to believe it's for free content).

I agree about the allocation of location markers, it's not just that some have nothing in them, its that some places desperately need more, Camp McCarren for instance. It's one of the things that give the impression that the game was rushed out before it was really finished.

Still one of the best games I've played.
User avatar
Brentleah Jeffs
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:21 am

Post » Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:13 am

So, this has been pissing me off for quite some time now. Before you begin writing, thinking, or even thinking about writing, have a look at this wonderful picture:

http://i53.tinypic.com/2u7q3j7.png

Do you think that it is okay that 38,2271% of the map is unreachable? (yes, i counted the squares).

Also, what could they have done to use that empty space?

Oh, and here is a picture of Fallout: 3's map to compare:

http://i56.tinypic.com/2r3fqpu.png


Yeah, I don't understand why people say FONV is bigger. Not only does it NOT feel bigger, it is not bigger. Also, even though there are more places on the map in FONV a lot of them are small and even just one little shack and some of those one building locations you can't get in to the building. The small locations in FO3 are not marked on the map and the large locations that are marked on the map are huge in comparison to FONV.

That might be, but they could still have easily spread the locations out more, so the huge space wasn't wasted. And for God's sake, put some random encounters in between!!!

Anyways, I'm still pretty sure that the amount of walkable space was bigger in Fallout 3.


Whether one is bigger than the other or not....I agree, Fallout 3 just feels bigger. It's takes longer to walk from one place to the other and more stuff happens on the way, whether it's random encounters or unmarked places on the map to discover.

You know what bothers me? Why can't I get up on the crumbled over passes? Like the one going up towards the Boomers. I tried and tried and there was no way to get up on it. :/
User avatar
Tanya Parra
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:15 am

Post » Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:24 pm

FO3 and New Vegas feel small next to the originals were locations could be hundreds of miles apart.

Hardly comforting since the places you could actually play in would fit in a small bucket. Los Angeles for one was barely larger than, say, Pennsylvania Avenue in FO3.
User avatar
Miss K
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:33 pm

Post » Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:50 pm

I do not think any big areas of the map will be opened up for DLC.

We will be as others have said whisked off for a 4-6 hour off map loacation each time probably with a dodgy collar strapped to our necks
User avatar
Natalie Taylor
 
Posts: 3301
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:54 pm

Previous

Return to Fallout: New Vegas

cron