if the quest involves me shooting a guy for caps then quest if not exploring and shooting folks and taking there money

You've finally lost it, epicness.

No literally you can learn all about the F1 and F2 just from the wiki alon now a days. Thas why im saying you dont even need to play them just watch videos. But if it was 7 years ago i wouldnt say this.

no you can't. XD You have no idea of the interactions and relationships and how everything comes together.

I'm sorry, but information about a game is nothing. You have to really play the game to understand what's going on. Understand? I bet not, since you haven't played the originals.

Indeed, thats like taking your car down to some random unknown person to be fixed and he says "he watched a video and read a wiki" so he should be perfectly qualified to fix your car right?

Damn water in my gas.

I understand waht your talking about but still it would be possible.

i dont think this works like that i would say more like i read a wiki now i can fly an aircraft that seems more fun

oy vey... its about the recivilization and rebuilding? :snoring: thats one reason why new vegas is boring after a couple playthrus, not sure if you're up with the news but bethesda owns fallout, i only needed to play FO3 to know at fallout is, hahahaha... the capitol wasteland is a much more fun place to cruise around than new vegas and don't be expecting FO4 which will be made by bethesda to be anything like NV. all this "rebuilding" and "civilization" is pretty boring if taken too far, it's a post apocalyptic game not the sims, did you play FO3?, the east coast is still toast, there's plenty of supermutants and rubble around and its not civilized like new vegas.

And New Vegas didn't?

I'm sorry but there is just as much exploration as FO3

Indeed, he mean there isn't random baddie spawn points with loot every 10 feet.

Boring to you maybe and however many others, so [censored]. If you want to just play a simple Post-Apocalyptic game from Bethesda and decide whether it's better or not from your standards then do so; Fallout is a series of games and to properly discuss lore & continuity and such you need to understand it, if you think that talking about why F3 is implausible and wrong in the continuity (IDK about game mechanics, turn-based and such stuff as such that isn't my thing) of the series is stupid and would make a boring game then fine. Just enjoy the single game then, to talk about the pro's and con's of the whole series you really need ton understand the previous game's.

If you only care about enjoying the single game don't think you know about the entire series, just because Bethesda own's it doesn't mean it can ignore what came previously, they haven't declared what came before as non-canon so therefore it exsists and to deviate from it in stupid ways is wrong in the Fallout series, regardless of what is fun and what is not. Just because the previous game's are 10 years old doesn't mean they don't count for anything, in case you didn't notice F3 took a lot from them.

Quests, I play Fallout because they're RPGames, not cause I want some massive dungeon crawler.
On the other hand, I won't mind the exploration aspect if it's there, as long as the RPG mechanics are intact or upgraded.

But mainly it's all about quests for me with the combat that is there to be challenging as hell.
Too bad that neither FO3 or NV had challenging combat.

[edit]
Oh and looky! It's a Fo3 vs True Fallout thread. :ahhh:

I'm not a fan of exploring without a goal. so yeah, quests are the more interesting part.

What I'd love to see though, would be the removal of quest markers. Now I know this could be done with mods, but that's not the same. The dialogue isn't written with this in mind and would have to be way more specific in telling you where to go.
I still have fond memories of some Morrowind quests which instructed you to follow the coast eastwards until you see a spire to the south that marks the entrance to a valley, then to follow that valley until.... etc. Combine this with barren, radioactiv landscapes and you've got a nice survival and exploration theme going while always keeping a goal in mind.

Sure it does, I'm saying otherwise. But it should not be the most overwhelming aspect and clearly something that's given more love during the developement than any other aspect of the game, leaving a feeling of integral features being neglected almost on purpose. Well maybe for TES, I don't care... but not in Fallout anyway. And I never suggested that the game should be "barren and desolate", although aren't those words synonymous to wasteland (especially a post apocalyptic one). You can explore with or without the quests, but I can't do quests that don't exist.

"Realistically", in a post apoc world where there are semiworking settlements and the beginnings of a new society, I would try go where there are other people, and try to get my act together to improve my situation, and avoiding fights when ever I can because I only have my one life - not being alone and wallowing in [censored] inside abandoned buildings and sorting out crap like I'm on some freak expedition.

Please tell me what are the "real elements" of a post apocalyptic game. What are they? Being crowded (everywhere you go, you meet someone either hostile or friendly)? Feeling crammed (everyone's everyones neighbort and eveyone's still isolated)?
Misplaced priorities? Explain those too. In a game, the player should be offered things to do... New Vegas offers a [censored] load of quests. If you don't like them, or if you don't like to do quests in general, then that's too bad. The priority in New Vegas was obviously to provide the player a lot of quests and stories, and connect the exploration part to some degree in them. It did just that.

Anyways, I want an incentive to explore, not the pointless random wandering - and before you post your stuff again with few different words to make it look like something you didn't just post like 100 times in a row already, a given incentive (a quest, in this case) can be ignored by the player. So if you disagree with me on my point, you basically disagree with having quests because, as I said, I never suggested that there should not be anything to explore.

Not sure why people are still saying that New Vegas has little to explore, that's just not true. Practically all of the major explorable areas are tied to one quest or another, but there's nothing stopping you from exploring these places without doing that quest. I'm not sure why whether or not a location is tied to a quest or two even matters... exploring is exploring whether you have a reason for being there or not.

There's also plenty of smaller dungeons with enemies and loot that aren't tied to a side quest, the Silver Peak mine for example is filled with Cazadores and has a worthwhile reward at the end.

No it doesnt you call little shacks and Cactuses all the time explorating?? because thats very dull exploration.

exactly epic, anyone who thinks FONV has loads of exploring hasn't really played FO3, they think it has exploring oy vey, but if they think bethesda is gonna make FO4 with a lot of cactus, tents and one room shacks they're not gonna like FO4, its gonna be have plenty of stuff to do and lots of dungeons to explore cause thats what bethesda does, bethesda makes a different type of fallout, its a fallout with tons of exploiring and dungeons and good quality combat and enemies, so they better get use to playing new vegas for a while.

O' reely?


This thread is getting to places...

They better get use to the NEW fallout because bethesda is going to shape into what they want. Interplay had there chance and falile and now bethesda has the seires in there hands.

Well, are we finally going to hear what are those 'real elements of postapocalyptica' of yours dear west?

Dont be rude. :nono:

Rude? I am just trying to be snarky. :chaos:

No hard feelings though.

Ok ok but try to keep calm and cool.