the NV map was a smaller area than fallout 3, it seemed vast but there wasn't much in it, most of the locations were near the city and it wasn't all that big

well i agree, i always felt fallout 3 was kinda a practice fallout game for bethesda, there were a lot of things they tried out and some of it worked some of it didn't but i never had the feeling that was their pinnacle moment in the fallout franchise.

I for one hated those tunnels, it was a big turn off for me in the game. And it also just seemed like they used them to close off sections of the map to act as levels with specific access points.

They were a pain to traverse without many seriously interesting or noteworthy things about them.

You mean to say that it is even more cramped than F3? (I think remember reading it's supposed to be more densely filled with "hotspots")

Can't comment much since I don't own the game, but while it might sound like a swell direction for the core idea of a sandobx action game - that you bumb into something ever 15 to 20 seconds in all directions, keeps you constantly occupied with "what's over the next hill" - I'm not sure if it befits Fallout for what kind of mood and feel it produces. I mean, it already felt all over the place in 3.

As expected of a Courier Six =P

Perhaps all the porting (maps broken into segments) in Fallout 3 gave me the impression that it was smaller.

I believe NV open world required no porting except when entering settlements.

I am from the midwest, so the general "landscape" of NV appeals to me more than DC. I like the highways and billboards. The feeling of traveling through more rural settings (with the exception of Vegas itself, of course) is appealing to me. I like the "national park" feel to some of the areas, the DLC in particular.

Now you've got me jonesing for some FONV.

California wasteland by far.

That said, The Pitt is my favorite location in the Fallout universe.