And the rocks and shacks of Fallout 3 were all that better?

Your kidding me right?? There was vualts, Metros, Huge buildings to explore. Not to mention all of DC itself was exploration at its fulliest.

And there are vaults, huge ruins, and sewers to explore in F:NV. I'm starting to doubt that you've played it if you think that there wasn't large areas to explore.

And New Vegas map is one flat spotless desert without a single building.

Riiiiight...
You're only seeing what you want to see.

Take out half of quests in NV and you'll have more than enough places to do what you call "exploring" (and what I call aimless wandering).

Thread Related: Quests. I get bored without them.

Ugh. i explored the sewers in FVN and half are just filled with nothing but worthless [censored]. Huge ruins lol dont make me laugh. What big ruins are there??! yes theres vualts but i left that out becauset thats the only exploration the game.

And since when were the metro stations filled with anything?

I'm not even going to go into the comment about there not being large ruins because that's just a bald faced lie.

There is exploration to F:NV. I don't see how people don't think there is because I've spent more time exploring the Mojave far more than I did the Capital Wasteland.

Well clearly you ddint play F3. Because there is far more exporation on my pinky finger than in FNV.

I Explore to find Quests.

I Quest to find places to Explore.

so it evens out.

If we're discussing "realism", then it's been two hundred+ years since the war and so we shouldn't see any boarded up houses or things to scavenge. All prewar stuff (excepting stuff defended by robotic defense systems or otherwise inaccessible ala the Toxic Caves) should have been looted long ago. Two hundred years is more than enough time to rebuild civilization, especially considering that you have the crutch of prewar tech to build upon.

In short, Fallout 1 was pretty much the latest you can have legitimate "post-apocalyptic exploration" without things getting dumb. This was, in fact, the problem with a lot of FO3's atmosphere. It's allegedly hundreds of years after the war... Yet there's still trash on the streets, people can still make do scavenging two hundred year old food from supermarkets, and everyone is living in scrap-metal hovels instead of actual buildings.



I want to know how you came to these conclusions. Don't just say "it's my opinion", because that's just meaningless words. I want to know how you arrived at your opinion.

I played FO3 for around 200 hours, and I spend MUCH MORE TIME exploring in FNV.

And you've proven that how?

So far you've said nothing that proves that F:NV doesn't have an exploration component to it or that it is significantly less than that of Fallout 3's exploration.

On the other hand I know of several large locations in F:NV (if you want I could tell you them or you could just look up the vault wiki and find out for yourself)

The only thing that you have countered with is that there were vaults in FO3, which there are vaults in F:NV (of course we haven't even compared the size of the vaults of which F:NV has more vaults as dungeons than FO3), that there are huge ruins in FO3, which there are huge ruins/locations in F:NV, and claimed that the metro stations were substantial compared to the sewers in New Vegas (which of course is not true because the metro station essentially had nothing in it either).

Short answe: Quests
Long answer: I dont like the FO3 "exploration" if that is going in dungouns. I found it quite boring and its not my style running around in a metro all day long.
But what I did like in Fallout 3 was exploring the wasteland "on" the ground. I loved finding small settlements like daves republic and Arefu.
But do you know how I found them? Not by just going out in the wastes, but doing quests. "Okay, im going from little lamplight to bigtown ( damn Sticky) . HEY! Whats that ol house doing there? Lets go and check it out".

Ugh...you just dont even know. Almost everyone thinks theres more explorationg in F3.

So you should have plenty of information and evidence to support your argument

Until you provide that evidence F:NV has just as much of an exploration component as Fallout 3 as far as I'm concerned

if you really think that, i don't believe you really spent much time playing FO3.

And as I've told the other poster if you can provide evidence (not opinion) that F:NV has considerably less exploration than FO3 I'll be happy to take back my comments

Don't even try to argue with that guy. It usually boils down to 'what is fun and boring' lecture and then he ignores your replies afterwards. Evidence or not.

Seriously, this is the way it works on these forums: When people run out of arguments, all they can do is throw in opinions as a basis and call in the entitelment shield. :hubbahubba:

well bethesda fans generally like dungeons, its part of a bethesda game, but the new vegas terrain is prety lousy even for a desert, there's not many towns for as big as the area is and the towns in the game are dull and boring and there's nothing to do in em, i like combat and exploration in a game, and since new vegas doesn't have much of either, i won't be shelling out 40 more dollars for dlc or even playing new vegas anymore. there's some good games coming out later this year, RAGE and Skyrim.. and Stalker early next year for the consoles, so my money isn't gonna be spent on dlcs for a snoozefest like new vegas.

:rofl:

What Bethesda game have you ever played that had big towns that weren't dull and boring?

evidence, FO3 metro tunnels were huge and some of em complex, so there's like 100 times more tunnels right there alone, lets talk about the caves, in FO3 they were pretty big, new vegas they were all small, new vegas filled up the map with some one room shacks and tents. FO3 had radar stations, power stations, and plenty of cisterns scattered around, FO3 had tons of battlezones, i'll name a few, both sides of the capitol building, la enfant plaza, gnr plaza, falls church area, georgetown, seward square, takoma industrial and really the entire downtown area, new vegas doesn't have anything compared to that, the strip is boring as hell. :batman:
as far as large buildings, new vegas has both repconn facilities and helios one, and those are the biggest, and even they aren't that elaborate, FO3 has tons of large places with mutliple stories, basemants etc, let me name just some of em, national guard armory, lob enterprises, chryslus building, roosovelt academy, red racer factory, robco, the statesman hotel, the hospital and the hospital underground, the library, vault tech headquarters, alexandria arms, nuka cola plant, talon base, the capitol building, national archives building, dunwich building, anchorage memorial, there's more i left out but thats a lot bigger list than new vegas.

:rofl: you dont know what your talking about.

Jjleon there's no point in arguing with the two of them. I'm suspecting they are really robots secretly made by Bethesda that have no love other than pointless exploration. Notice how certain phrases set them off:

Fallout 3 svcks! Bethesda fails! New Vegas has better writing! Exploration!

Now, watch their responses...

Hi Shadowhuntt pretty damn good response mmmm. I like your logic here.

Old boy, you aren't betraying Fallout or anything by admitting that F3 had more exploration that Fallout: New Vegas or even that it has a few scattered positive points because it did in all honesty...