Yeah and those areas are infested with deathclaws and super mutants. And creation of paradise in the area near to old olney would be a stupid decision.

ALL areas? Sorry, I just don't see why we should start the GECK process in Old Olney or other obviously infested places. :facepalm:

All Northwest and Around Olney are dangerous and free spaces, most other areas have settlements.

So why not use those settlements, expanding and rebuilding them(not outright killing and destroying everything alive within its radius like you said. When a building is demolished today, do we leave the people inside? LOL)? Have another "Vault City"?

LOL

Hands down Fallout 3 was, is and always will be better than NV. I uninstalled FO:NV for good. Its cheesy, uninteresting, and as far as exploring goes it svcks! If you want to play a first person shooter go play one of the MANY CoD games or any of the 1000's carbon copys just like it. FO:NV has some good ideas, but was executed poorly. Hidden supply caves with no supplies. Caves so small they might as well be cracks in the rock, MANY "locations" that have nothing more than bent tin cans, no more random encounters, enemies few and far between, quests are just a bundled mess, blueprints that dont work, I could go on and on. The buildings (and every area in general) is so small its pointless to looks around and explore. Random ecounters were taken out of the new FO, one of the best things about FO3. In NV the map is SO SMALL. The buildings are small, everything is small.

I could go on and on about how FO3 is supperior to NV, the FEW good things NV added to the game isnt worth talking about. I wont buy another fallout game if it continues to go down the current path.

Just my opinion, for what its worth.

Would you buy Bethesda fallout game which i like fallout 3 but with NV good changes?

Huh? Where did (or who started it) the CoD argument come from? :facepalm:

Fallout was never about endless boxsand exploration until FO3 thus making New Vegas a poor "elderscroll-esque copy", but a brilliant Fallout game. Assuming you have played them.
The only 'superior' aspect of FO3 I see is the exploration and sandbox system. And the rest? That would be like comparing Jim Carrey to Groucho Marx. :rolleyes:

Maybe you shouldn't have expected another quick fix for your dungeon crawling. NV is pretty much the only game in 2010 with decent story, dialogue and immersion that isn't poor or doesn't fall apart after every second quest. But ahem, seems like these things are marked as 'overrated' or 'too tedious to read' these days. :snoring:

BTW: The map is not small, as confirmed by J.E. Sawyer himself. It's roughly the same size of Capital Wasteland(perhaps even bigger), it's just the annoying invisible walls.

It cant be bigger, It is smaller.
And quests designs are worst when fallout 3.

I am not sure which is bigger, just that FO3 had tons of empty space and the 2 reasons it took hundreds of hours to scour were 1) lots of empty space between locations, 2) lots of stuff to shoot. Ya FO NV could stand to use more and bigger dungeons, but FO 3 could also use greater depth to the stories, NPCs, combat system, character specialization...combine them and everyone will other love it or hate it. Personally, I would love a combination of them. Have BGS design the dungeons and map while Obsidian makes the characters, factions, stat system, and quest design. Sound like a winner?

The lead developer himself said it was bigger for god's sake.

If you were the lead developer of the game you would have only said good things about the game.

I think that FO 3 having vast areas empty of anything other than possible random spawns makes it feel larger.

Having random non-fitting cluster[censored] with no plausible explanation(how the hell can the Ant girl control other ants for example?) does not mean better to me. :shrug:

Yeah youre right. Having 50 nearly the same quests with diferent names is better when have original quests with good backrounds. Yeah i agree.

Dear god not this again.

How is "I forgot to remember to forget" or "Crazy, Crazy, Crazy" a same quest with different name? Or "Beyond the Beef" and "For Auld Lang Syne"? "Flags of our Foul-ups" or "GI-Blues?" How is.... no, you know what? Don't answer. Just take a look at http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_quests and then come back telling me that it's the freaking same all over again.

Just because it doesn't have quests filled with the "cool-factor" assplushns does not make it any worse than the F3 counterpart. In my opinion of course before some cop goes storming on my doors. :toughninja:

Also



Then you still haven't asnwered me how the Ant Superhero controls another ants. Plotholes are not working in favour of good quests, just sayin'.

That means there are still more original quests than quests of any kind in whole Fallout 3.

So you pretty much hate New Vegas because its too much of a Fallout game.

You know I really like Fallout New Vegas. I dont like Fallout 3 more there certain aspects that i found strange and crazy in both games. New Veags has amazing quests, Fallout 3 has middle quests but there are more different types of them while i can cetanly tell you four quest with completely the same objective with just a bit difference to the end of it. I found that strange but i guess they had their reasons. The Ant Superheor was nonsense i agree, though i dont remember her controlling them but any way Those quests in Fallout New Vegas which are original and inventive are really cool though too much of them is marked and they are harder to find when F3 counter parts. So no need to get agressive :thumbsup:

PS: Many quests are nearly the same because they courier type quest which i find being boring

I knew when I saw that kid he was one of "those".

btw Rusina, love your AV.

Post limit, have to close this one


Greetz,

Milt