I'm glad they removed them. Having to briefly pause my trek through the wastes just to one-shot a raider or mole rat didn't add much to the gameplay.

everything is in a fixed location, some things move around (traders, NCR and Caeser's Legion skirmishes.) and i dont like it all much.

I'll be the first to admit that as an adamant New Vegas lover I see this as its biggest flaw. No, I don't want it to the degree in Fallout 3, but some variety would be nice. The same 2 powder gangers spawning as some different raiders or wildlife would be good, and more changing of spawns depending on what you do in the game would also be good.


I am more disappointed in the lack of special encounters. Wild Wasteland does add them, but they are always in the same spot and only require on playthrough to see them. The way Fallout 3 did them with the zones wasn't bad. They generally made it so I saw something new for a lot of playthroughs (though the same happens with New Vegas with quests).

What I hope is that the next Fallout is made with time so it has the great content of New Vegas (in terms of quests, and the writing), more random encounters (both special and generic), and either a node system or a larger gameworld. That statement was more relevant for the Fallout Series section, but oh well.

yeah i prefer bethesda games, so whatever franchise they are making is always a smash hit, whether its fallout or elder scrolls...bethesda is the best thing that happened to the fallout franchise, but new vegas was a good game but it wasn't a great game and its replayability isn't very good since the entire game is pretty static and nothing different happens no matter how many times you play it, but its a good entry level game, its fun to play thru once or twice. but anything after that its just too predictable and boring.

its not that the game needs tons of action in every location 24/4 but there needs to be a random factor in each sector to some degree, so lets say if you're near goodsprings, there would be a possibility of various things that may or may not happen, so that way its not the same 2 bark scorpions in hidden valley or at nipton every single time, one time you may go thru there and find a faction patrol, sometimes maybe two factions in the same area clashing, maybe sometimes a sentry bot, or some super mutants, sometimes nothing, maybe most of the time nothing, each sector needs a certain level of random activity to some degree, even if its super random, but to have it static so that your next playthru is exactly the same is large apsect of the game thats basically broken, RPG's NEED randomness. there is NO excuse to leave a game thats suppose to be an rpg and making it totally static.

First? :stare:
Or do you mean first for this thread?

Anyway, I would like for the game to have some form of scaled enemies or scaled areas and random encounter zones.
Nowhere near as how FO3 handled it, but the gameworld is so predictable that I have no fun in wandering it anymore.
I just play it for the quests and story now and the enemies in the quests are hardly any challenge either so the combat is just flat out boring.

Bit extreme there, yeah of course some things were better in the originals and yeah some things were better in FO3 just as some things were better in NV..!
But at the end of the day fallout 3 probably attracted more consumers to the game because of the changes and advertising. Thats not to say 1 & 2 werent brilliant games!

Just a figure of speech. Common to say it where I'm from, at least. Don't mean to make it sound like I'm asserting self-importance or anything.

new vegas is an rpg that has a lot going for it, but what it DOESN'T have going for it is the "Random Factor" for an rpg this isn't an element you just ignore, there needs to be something more than the story to make you want to play it again, so it needs Randomness, each area or sector needs some degree of randomness to it, not matter how big or how small...any RPG needs randomness, any game period needs some random stuff, the game that are exactly the same each time, don't usually have much reason to play em more than once or twice, simple as that.

Ah, got it.

Yes randomness greatly adds to the game, but I do disagree with you that it requires randomness. The game does shine in the different ways to approach things for replayability, and I find it to be a greatly replayable game. For you, it may be necessary, which is definitely not a bad thing, but it certainly doesn't need it for me.

:wacko:
sure a game can be good for a while and not have any random type things but thats kinda two strikes against new vegas, first of all its setting is in a desert without much around or much to do in the first place, and on top of that the game doesn't have the "random" factor, so thats makes it twice as uninteresting, not only is the desert environment dull, there's notthing random that happens, its a double whammy, it was agood game that has very little replay value. thats the category i put it in, i won't want to pick it in afew months and play it again like i do other games. unless i forget that the same 2 bark scorpions are gonna spawn in hidden valley or forget that same 2 powder gangers will be behind jeans skydiving shack every time i go by there.

Fallout 3 had NO RANDOM ENCOUNTERS. They were ALL fixed, or set in different areas.

You know what, I have seen you say that exact same thing four times now, you act as though Fallout 3 wasn't as predictable.

They had both. Yes the "random encounters" were set at predetermined points but I can't blame them. Otherwise there's the chance you get some out of place ones as RDR. Not a knock though. Also I find the people who save at a spot and reload to see them all a bit redundant when they comment in threads like this. Their comments are akin to saying New Vegas has no replay value per-say to sided endings because you saved close to pivotal quests and sided with either of the big three(Well four) and finished the game 4 times taking up 30 min- 1 1/2 hours each one. Cheap way to go about it. So ye New Vegas lacked any sort of a set of "random events" at all. Which is understandable seeing the amount of time they had(Even if Bioware is going by the same time frame to build Mass Effect 3 while at the same time doing more projects than Obsidian. And no I'm not part of the praise Obsidian just to snuff at Bethesda's Fallout 3 crowd. Their no Brian Fargo's Interplay/Black Isle). For what they did though is admirable. But again, yes no random events.

Yes it did, and shouting doesn't change that. Random encounter spawn points might have been fixed, but the actual encounters themselves were still random. I might see a limping deathclaw outside super-duper mart, I might find a guy dying of thirst, or a junkie selling chems...

wrong, it had random encounters, i played enough of it to know, i prob played FO3 50 times at least, some playthrus i never saw certain factions patrolling in certain areas, sometimes other groups etc would be in an area and sometimes certain factions would clash and some game they never did, it had plenty of randomness, it wasn't all scripted.

Junkie selling chems? I would like to see a live junkie in FO3 other than the only one in Megaton.

Well, apart from the random encounter with the wandering dealer there's also Paulie in Rivet City, though his life expectancy is... varied. :whistling: Oh, and the barber in Underworld, he's got a Jet problem. And who knows who else Cindy Catrelli and Doc Hoff are supplying? Dukov and his girls and most of Paradise Falls I'd guess, at very least.

Me, I am a die hard Bethesda fan, but I hate mindless killing. I do not know where this "Kill, explosions! Bandits! Random Encounter! Exploration!" view came from. Fallout 3 is the only Bethesda game that fits that bar.

Now, Fallout 1 sets the bar for a great Fallout game, and FNV came much closer to that bar than FO3 did. Being a Bethesda fan, I was even sad about FO3. Why? There were Fallouts before FO3, and FO3 does not set the bar for a Fallout game. I don't even think Bethesda played the originals in the first place.

Maybe more sidequets? I know that it was a big improvment from FO3 but still, it cant compete with Oblivion
Thats actually one thing that i find that both FO3 and NV are lacking. The option to just do sidequests and have a good time with those, I mean, in Oblivion I actually played longest with a character that didnt give a damn about the amulet.

mindless killing? dude, bethesda games have plenty of combat, thats featured in their games, way more combat than new vegas, even elder scrolls has lots more combat than new vegas, plenty more areas that area dangerous in their games, most of the new vegas map doesn't have any enemies, most of an ES or FO3 map world is gonna be fairly dangerous to cruise around, and its a fact thats bethesda games are combat and exploration oriented, and you expect bethesda to make fallout like obsidian does, it ain't gonna happen, so you're prob gonna be complaining about the next fallout game bethesda makes also.

Actually, as long as you stay on the roads you are fairly safe in Oblivion, just as FNV. But if you start to go into the wilderness. thae chances that you meet a enemy will become much higher...just as NV

And what if it, against all odds, does?

Then Bethesda would have succeeded in making a Fallout Game, well at least on the write track. They need to work on their writing.