Better World To Explore? : Fallout: New Vegas

» Fri May 04, 2012 7:59 am

^Exactly.

The word setting, in both literature and games, is defined as a place and the attitudes and values of the people in that place. Without believable and interesting characters, a game's environment, and thus its exploration, suffers.

So I enjoyed the exploration in New Vegas better, partly because I tend to prefer the post-apocalyptic setting over the fantasy setting in modern video games, and also because of New Vegas' superior characters.

for me as well. Just having a pretty hiking simulator isn't really enough I think.

» Fri May 04, 2012 3:08 am

How come? Not trying to disagree with you just wondering why. Don't you think the TES levelling is more realistic in the fact that you use a skill and get better at it? I love both levelling systems so I don't mind either way.

Oh! I want to chip in too!
Because it's never balanced.
Either something goes up too quickly or it takes forever to level up.
The idea on paper sounds great, but in practice it's never good.

Take Speech in Skyrim for example, there are (Persuasion) moments, but they are too few so the main ways to get it up is by grinding.
So we have two ways to do that, we can sell things one by one, including arrows, which takes obnoxiously long, or we can do what I did:
1. Pickpocket something small.
2. Get caught by guard from failing.
3. Use Persuasion to get out of it.
4. Go to every guard in the town/village and initiate dialogue and use Persuasion. (It can't be used twice on one guard.)
5. Pay bribe, leave, come back, rinse and repeat.

Either way it's a horrible skill to get up.
That is just one reason out of many I have against it, but this one is a real thorn in my side.
When realism makes it dreadful for the gameplay then I want realism to be tossed out of the window.

» Thu May 03, 2012 11:31 pm

New Vegas exploration isn't good Lord-Kah1n?

It may not be as pretty as Skyrim's much more modern game graphics, but it sure as hell is a lot more interesting- and actually dangerous.

» Fri May 04, 2012 6:51 am

To be fair, there are some pretty spectacular locations in the Mojave. Red Rock Canyon is breathtaking, for example.

» Fri May 04, 2012 5:27 am

skyrim looks better and is a little bit more varied, but it's just not as FUN too explore, there's little to no point doing it, in fallout at least I feel like I'm scavenging or surviving or actually exploring, in skyrim it just feels like I'm walking around when I could be actually doing something.

» Thu May 03, 2012 10:20 pm

Neither. Morrowind- Bloodmoon was better than both but if i had to pick i'd say......... Skyrim in the north and in the east of the map. Fallout NV for the area north of Vegas.

» Thu May 03, 2012 6:02 pm

Neither. Morrowind- Bloodmoon was better than both but if i had to pick i'd say......... Skyrim in the north and in the east of the map. Fallout NV for the area north of Vegas.

You do realize there is this place called America.. and that this place actually exists.. and that, though condensed, this actual place is transferred to a fallout game... :cool:

» Fri May 04, 2012 1:52 am

You do realize there is this place called America.. and that this place actually exists.. and that, though condensed, this actual place is transferred to a fallout game... :cool:

No, no.... Vegas is just a bit southeast of Elsweyr....

» Fri May 04, 2012 9:46 am

Skyrim hands down.

» Fri May 04, 2012 4:45 am

New Vegas, because it actually made sense.

and to people saying Fallout 3's map is bigger then New Vegas, please do some research, its been said time and time again by devs that the playable area of the map is the same width as F3's map, but taller, so it is bigger. And the loads of empty space outside of the playable map is just there so you have something to see in the distance, if it wasn't there it would be just a black void, or a terrible static skybox texture.

» Fri May 04, 2012 6:37 am

Yes i do realize this. i assumed the post was about the in game MAP not the world in its entirety. I apologise for the confusion. If the world as a whole was ment then Nirn though then the wording to the question makes little sense why not just say Nirn or Fallout instead of site the individual games? that was the root of my confusion.

» Fri May 04, 2012 8:24 am

Yes i do realize this. i assumed the post was about the in game MAP not the world in its entirety. I apologise for the confusion. If the world as a whole was ment then Nirn though then the wording to the question makes little sense why not just say Nirn or Fallout instead of site the individual games? that was the root of my confusion.

No need to apologize.. it was not a serious reply.. hence the smiley.. I was very well aware what you meant. :-)

» Fri May 04, 2012 9:35 am

oh oops

» Fri May 04, 2012 12:58 am

Fallout 3 is probably one of the better world's to explore if we're comparing it to New Vegas. I like New Vegas's open world, I like how I can see objects in the distance like Helios but I don't like how a lot of the locations are bland and are only worth exploring one time. Maybe it's too much TES that's causing that situation.

New Vegas is the better game though, easily over Fallout 3. Obsidian runs circles around Beth.

» Fri May 04, 2012 4:11 am

Fallout 3 is probably one of the better world's to explore if we're comparing it to New Vegas. I like New Vegas's open world, I like how I can see objects in the distance like Helios but I don't like how a lot of the locations are bland and are only worth exploring one time. Maybe it's too much TES that's causing that situation.

New Vegas is the better game though, easily over Fallout 3. Obsidian runs circles around Beth.

Um, to be honest, once I saw any particular place in Skyrim, I never felt any especially strong desire to go explore it again. I dutifully ooh'ed and aah'ed at the sights, but even pretty scenery is repetitive scenery, once you've been though it once or twice. It's the rest of the gameplay and RPG elements that make replaying that scenery either interesting or dull. I guess it's no coincidence then, that i've spent a lot more time in the 'bland' scenery of NV.

» Thu May 03, 2012 6:51 pm

I'm going to say New Vegas, I love the post apocalyptic World and prefer it over fantasy.

» Thu May 03, 2012 9:26 pm

Um, to be honest, once I saw any particular place in Skyrim, I never felt any especially strong desire to go explore it again. I dutifully ooh'ed and aah'ed at the sights, but even pretty scenery is repetitive scenery, once you've been though it once or twice. It's the rest of the gameplay and RPG elements that make replaying that scenery either interesting or dull. I guess it's no coincidence then, that i've spent a lot more time in the 'bland' scenery of NV.

Sums up Skyrim's "exploration" pretty good. I got to a point in my skyrim plays that I avoided going into various dungeons because they soon turn all into the same type of place.

» Fri May 04, 2012 2:37 am

Sums up Skyrim's "exploration" pretty good. I got to a point in my skyrim plays that I avoided going into various dungeons because they soon turn all into the same type of place.

Kill Draugr/Dwemer/Falmer.
Reach end.
Open Chest!
Exit.