Hi,

Just curious what people think is the general length of the game. I know you can play them forever. Just to get most things done. Is Vegas half the size? Same? 25%?

Thanks.

Well kinda hard to gauge because FONV has 4 dlcs to them.

If we simply compare base game to base game, a single playthru maybe longer on fo4 simply because how it's designed (do everything one playthru and mine craft settlements) whereas FONV has opposing design (cannot do everything in one playthru).

One key factor is that while yes each game has 4 factions u can join, fo4 gives roughly the same ending for every faction (design of do everything thru one playthru) whereas FONV, who u join changes the game in what u do and why u do it.

Another reason why fo4 maybe longer in a single playthru is because it doesn't end, it lets u keep playing to explore and finish up any leftover quests whereas FONV gives u an ending. Now while some people think that an ending is a bad thing, I personally view it as a good thing simply because Obsidian chose to have an ending to show us our consequences to our choices and tbh it's easier to show and portray that thru writing and ending slides than to encorporate (or not to incorporate) in the actual game world for u to explore around in. Now FONV DOES show ingame some of c&c (u radiate the fort, when u met ceaser u see people in hazmat suits, wipe out the ncr in Helios one and the legion will take over, shot dogface when u first met him and then pray u didn't bc of the Death squads that start tracking you, etc etc to give just a small example).

I'll stop here and quite rambling. Definitely get FONV and try it out and get the ultimate edition.



Tldr-

Fo4 u play thru once to experience everything, FONV u play thru it at least 4 times to experience a good chunk of it.

Couldn't have said it better. Length of play is about the same if you ask me, but the side content in the base game of New Vegas has a profound impact on the ending of the game. There are also several different build in New Vegas, so you'll be playing it again to experience the game in a different way. It's a little slow starting, but it keeps you moving, like old-school RPG's, but with the open world feel we expect from this type of game.

It depends on what your criteria are.

For exploration, FO4 is longer. FONV wasn't really built for interesting exploration. There are things to see, but not like in BGS games.

For quests, FONV is longer. It has both more detailed quests (often, not always) and significantly more quests. And that's not counting the DLC.

For different story resolutions and multiple different quest resolutions (playing different styles of characters) you also get more play time out of FONV. This obviously doesn't matter if you're just going to play once, but it's great if you like to try different characters and play styles.

One thing to keep in mind about FONV, though, is that you can literally go for hours without combat... if you want to. If you're playing a diplomatic character with decent speech skill, or actively pursuing the story, you can end up with large gaps of time without fights. Some folks might consider that boring (and not understand that they made that happen through choices), so I thought I should warn you.

Fallout 4 doesn't take a long time to traverse if truth be told, you can discover a large percentage of the locations quite quickly, I do not see this as a bad thing, having all of the locations miles apart isn't exactly evolution in terms of game development, people only really complain about it for Role Playing purposes.

Fo4 has a lot more variation in it's locations than NV and it will take you a LOT longer to clear every location if that is what you desire.

As for the overall length of the game I cannot say as I am still on my first playthrough, About 90 hours in and I can see that at least doubling (probably more) before I'll think about creating a new character.

Seriously ? It is one of the main selling point and it depends on player agency, why would anyone complain ?

It's like diplomatic players/characters complaining about the fact it is possible to shoot people/critters. As long as it depends on player/character agency and the game support it, why removing that playstyle ?

You're preaching to the choir, but there's a certain recent, extremely popular "rpg" that only involves quest resolution through killing. And it's pretty typical gameplay.

Need to do scientific research to progress the story? Kill everyone at the medical facility.

Time to perform espionage? Kill everyone at the black ops site. Etc. Etc.


If you've been watching threads on reddit and a lot of forums, many fans consider this to be deep gameplay and the perfect rpg experience. Also you might want to keep in mind that railroaded story and dialog means more freedom. Because reasons.


But I'm not bitter. Nope.


Anyway, seeing the current state of game players, and hearing complaints about how games are boring if they're more complicated than a Michael Bay movie, led me to include a warning.

It's not possible to do everything on one playthrough, I actually thought I would be able to do more in one playthrough.

I've heard that the game makes it clear when you are about to make a faction turn on you, this turned out to be untrue!!!

I don't think anyone who thinks you can do everything in one playthorugh has actually done 'everything' in the first place to know that.

But as long as the player can decide to shoot, talk, or hide (or any other option) there is no reason to complain about the ability to do the other too. Just do the option that suits you the most.

It becomes a huge problem when you are forced to shoot, talk or hide. If you are a talker and being forced to shoot is a problem. But if you are a shooter and you can shoot, why would you complain about the possibility to talk ?

It is not taste, but being selfish or uncaring to other playstyles.

About the unmentioned game in which you only shoot, if it is the one i think, i don't intend to play it.

PS: Of course, being able to shoot should also imply that the npc stays dead.

in terms of one single playthrough? FONV is longer, honestly. People say there's no reason to explore, but I beg to differ, some, if not most, of the locations have an interesting setting or story to them/unique weapon within them that require the player to have a taste of adventure, such as the Paladin Toaster, which is far off the beaten path for the player to look.

In FO4, There's hardly any worth in looking around, as the only reason you're most likely exploring is Bobbleheads/magazines, as the items you find in every area can easily be built. Legendary Affixes are not legendary at all, all of the affixes can be found on any weapon.

New Vegas is longer when it comes to doing quests, getting to learn the various factions and so on.

Fallout 4 is longer in that you can spend a ton of time building settlements and gathering the resources for those settlement. Which has its appeal but it isn't what I want in Fallout. If you removed that aspect from the game it would be a very short game indeed.

Get the game, get the NMC's hi res textures, character overhaul mod, ultra realistic wasteland lighting, and your done. You will love the game, and it will still look kinda acceptable for 2016.

IMO, new vegas is a longer and deeper game than FO4, even without the DLC's. I've played over 150 hours of FO4, one playthrough, and while I like the game, I feel like it was unfinished, and way too simple. Most missions are go shoot kill shoot kill without any option of doing anything else. But, the game is totally beautiful though.

And to reply directly to your question, I feel like the NV map is a bit larger than the FO4 map.

I agree with the overall feeling that FONV is longer in terms of quests, but the settlement development can be an enormous time sink. The FONV map might be bigger (it did feel like it took longer to go from place to place), but it feels emptier, like there are fewer actual locations.. But most of the locations in FO4 are just another horde of raiders/ghouls/supermutants to kill or another hapless settlement to build into a fortress. Not saying it's a bad game, and there's plenty of gameplay to be had, but it's definitely more action-orietned than FONV, and it can get repetitive.

I don't really understand the complaints about the graphics. Maybe the polygon counts and texture details are higher in some other games, but an awful lot of love was lavished on creating the environments. I wish I had been to Boston more recently so I could figure out how good a reproduction it is. Has anybody done a comparison of the photographs of Boston to Fallout 4 environments?

I chuckled to myself when I was looking for Diamond City, noticed I had entered the Fens, and realized what Diamond was going to be.

I wouldn't say that Vanilla NV, without any DLC or mods is loner than Fo4. What's more is that it feels like it takes a lot longer ti discover and explore every location in Fo4.

It's kinda hard to judge the two on length. New Vegas does have more quests but a lot aren't all that complex and some amount to just fetch quests and going to a location to talk with someone. It shines more in some of the more involved quests with factions and locations but most of it is just misc quests where you're basically just doing chores and errands.