because he was using it as a reason to completely ignore the legitimacy of the originals.

Exactly, and the majority of those customers came to fallout through Bethesda, thus they are more accustomed to Bethesda's way of making games (more game-world, exploration oriented) than Obsidian's (more story driven). And yes, the lack of places to explore due to a small map, as well as the lack of random encounters (very few encounters in general) is why one can consider the New Vegas world more static.

I see no proof of that, and your reasoning makes no sense.

I honestly think if they started a section called "Fallout: debate/compare FONV and FO3 Discussion" that would be the most popular section. No one wants to talk about FONV in the FO3 section. It's all here. I think people just really enjoy the debate. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Some people like apples and some people like oranges. Who's to say which one is better. Everyone has their preference.

This. One thousand times this. :clap:

More like comparing two different brands of apples. They're not that different, Fo3 and NV, to become different fruits altogether.

Do you have a source for that? I keep seeing it mentioned but the only figures I could find are for F3's opening week (4.7 million copies) and FNV's first THREE weeks sales (5 million copies). So, they appear to be about the same (assuming F3's sales trailed off sharply after the opening week).

The fact, like it or lump it, is that most people came to Fallout through F3, because the opening weeks sales beat the total sales of all the earlier games combined; so you have to assume that most people were hyped for FNV because they enjoyed F3.

I like stuff from both games, and both have their faults. I miss the exploration from F3 in NV. I'm currently replaying F3, for the 5th time, and I've discovered several locations that I've never seen before. It all adds spice.

200+ posts so it's time to lock this.