Yes indeed at least someone here can agree with something obvious.

:vaultboy:

Anyway, I can also vouch for the 'exploration' aspect of F3 which I liked.

^what are you trying to say.

My input on the exploration in FO3.

There were more dungeons, no doubt about that, but there were too many and the things you found in them became mundane instead of being actual rewards for completing them.
While some had great design and pretty nice touches they just felt pointless to me and there were so many that they just started to feel repetitive.

In NV there are less dungeons and most can be very short, like the one by RRC where there are fire geckos, it's not big, 3 rooms maybe, but that's nice to me.
Why should it be enormous?
With the smaller size you could get a hang of what the dungeon was about and get done with it in a reasonable time.
While in FO3 a dungeon felt like it never ended a lot of times.
Some consider that a good thing, for me it's just irritating, the longer the dungeon the higher the challenge and the better the reward.
This was not the case with FO3's dungeons most of the time.
You go on for a loooong dungeon shooting moderate or easy enemies over and over and get maybe a skill book and some ammo.
While that fire gecko cave in NV was only 3 rooms big it gave a nice little dufflebag as a reward, felt quick, nice and I got a little something something for it.
Nothing great but neither did I in FO3's over sized dungeons.

And with the whole "shacks" argument; Why should there be a dungeon every 50 meters?
I like a gameworld that feels coherent, and while you most of the time get crap from these places it means that when you finally get something you feel a greater sense of reward for it.
In FO3 every place tried to have the player be rewarded for the dungeons and it just made the rewards mundane and cut down in importance.
So shacks might not be as interesting as the capitol in FO3 or the yao guai cave but at least it feels realistic.
I wouldn't say NV is bad because of it. (exploration wise)
I'd blame it on FO3 trying to force feed us with crap every single minute of playtime.

/opinion.

^ im not going to lie some of those exploring buildings were a little annoying but i really didnt like the metros because they were tedious and annoying. I didnt like vaults because Vault 87 scared me.

I actually miss the scope of Fallout 3, all the barren place's and the size of DC itself, good for RPing even before hardcoe mode...

Well eh, you've acussed him of posting a poor response. I just showed you that you did the same(sorta) just 30 minutes ago. :vaultboy:

Anyway, let's not dwell on it.

I played 450 hours of FO3, there's just as much to explore and even more to do in NV then FO3. Mostly has to do with all the repetition you see in FO3. You go to one raider nest you go to them all. Extremely boring. Same back to you, you clearly didn't play NV Because there's far more to do then FO3.

Does that make it true?

---

Quest usually; but I did enjoy wandering around in FO3, far far away from any settlements or talking NPC's.

you clearly arent playing the right game then. Because i don tknow what your explanation of exploration is.

I think he means exploration, you know, exploring the world around you, true exploring. What you define as exploration is similar to the definition of "loot hunting", which i assume differs from his definition of exploration, most likely meaning "to find and document locations and landmarks of the world."

I prefer quests and the story. Me, I love Bethesda and TES, but TES is not Fallout. The Elder Scrolls is not a dungeon diving game, so I don't know where this "I love dungeons and exploration!" came from. The only Bethesda game that fits that description is FO3 to be honest.

:blush: i like large complex mazes to get lost in, new vegas did have the vaults and they were good, a one room building that has no or very few enemies isn't as fun to me, some of them are ok, but you need both, large and small, the large dungeons keep me busy for a long time, i take my time, sneak around, lay mines, taking out enemies, i just don't go thru like a bulldozer really fast, i take my time, same with outdoors locations, i like to take up position in cover, stalking enemies, not just run n gun everywhere. but dungeons and large secret type bases serve a purpose, for people who like dungeons they provide hours of fun, some people like reading tons of dialogue, so i think all those elements need to be in a game. to me new vegas was a letdown, not because they did a lot of things right, because some very important elements they ignored almost completely, not just made then less but totally ommited from the game...mainly exploring and some unpredictablity on the map.

Oblivion was, or at least could be played like one. I've had characters who did almost nothing but dungeon dive, but then I'm a spelunker at heart.

Anyway, the quests/exploring thing is a false dichotomy. One drives another.

Exactly.

I define exploration differently. I like to explore the politics, culture, and army of a faction. I don't mind the occasional dungeon dive, but I prefer to explore factions and history.

:frog:
"as much to do" is subjective, to you since you're not into exploring and prob like other elements of the game , to you there is more to do, like reading all the dialogue, and doing all the quests, but to me exploring and combat is "something to do" its still a sad fact that new vegas has a very static mapworld, maybe the dialogue and npcs aren't static but the actual map, the environment, the terrain the lack of a dynamic world is glaring, so even you don't like exploring for people who do they notice the complete lack of it in new vegas. its not there, its a snoozefest, new vegas is a war story without drama, action and suspense, its simply a story with dialouge, its kinda like reading a book.

For once, I can agree mostly, but for me, New Vegas had plenty of Drama and Action..

well thats true towns in general are boring, but there are at least locations other than barren desert that provide places to hide and sneak around fighting enemies and to just explore, i have plenty of complaints about certain aspects of bethesda games also, but so far they seem have a lot more of the elements in a game i like, but its true most towns are boring, i wish the factions each had their own townns they were at, in the entire city area of new vegas, even if you want to fight the ncr and lets say the kings, there's not really any place to hide, most of the places you have to enter thru a loading screen, they could make more buildings kinda like the one across from mick and ralphs, so at least you can cruise around some rubble and find places to hide, but the city of new vegas doens't have any "hidden" type areas, you're just out in the open wherever you are, to me thats a huge lack of detail.

Mostly exploring for me. I don't mind the occasional fight, but TES has so much fighting it just become boring and repetitive. FONV took out much of this repetitiveness and shifted it over more towards fighting the elements and needs (using hardcoe mode). First NCR run I ended up winning the dam in a way I really didn't expect. So I love how the game is not just walking about killing stuff, even in many side quests you can take a more non violent way.

My major gripe on exploring, is that a game with such a focus on replay shouldn't take away the *need* to explore on following replays where you know where all the goodies are.

well it did, it was just a different kind, so i have a predisposed idea of what i want in a game, i could of dealt with the lack of dungeons better if the map just had more on it, like the bonnie springs ghost town, i would of liked there to be a lot more of those, and all a bit different, and with enemies that respawn, kinda like how the fiends are always around, i did think obsidian did do a lot of things really good, improved combat mechanics, a nice selection of weapons, the repuation system and factions were good, they made the special/skill/perk system more meaningful and the repair system was improved over FO3, they put a lot of effort in those things, so for them to put everything they did in the game in a short time is commmendable, they're not slackers, what they do, they do very well, but i feel they ignored a lot of bethesda fans by almost totally ingoring a few aspects of the game such as the exploring and making the map itself more dynamic in the combat and enemies department.

personaly i enjoy all the fallouts 1 2 tactics 3 and nv but i had more fun in 3 than i did in nv it seems to me that i was done with everything alot faster and wondering what to do afterwords

Lolz static game world? Fallout 3 didn't? Oh so you can't hit the same Talon company spawns in the exact same places every 3 days? Same with raiders and everything else. I'd call that static. I even put in MMM increased increased spawns and 5 companion mods so we could have some squad vs. platoon sized fights. I worked the map clock wise hitting all the spawn points killing the same enemies over and over. Each spot, same enemies, same loot, same everything. I had Zombie apocalypse addon for MMM too so the metros had literally hundreds of Spawns. All the same spot, same bad guys.

wait both games have same spawns why is this even a debate? you should just let bygons be bygons on this one

Then it's not fair to call New Vegas static but F3 not-static.

well i well both are static you can expect the same stuff every time it will never change unless you geck it