i know its your opinion but i've noticed that "original fallout players" prefer a good story based game instead of a thrilling and exciting.

Fallout new vegas= good story told game but gets boring once you complete all the endings
Fallout 3= is a thrilling post apocalyptic game were random things happen, and yeah of course some things don't add up but the epicness of FO3 makes up for that :fallout:

Some rather rude and uncalled for stuff has been removed.

Yes that rating is pretty spot on. It doesnt deserve to be ANY higher than that.

Anyway sorry for the somewhat crudeness but i'm correct people get a buzz from little fake victorys.

Did I like it? Let's see... I stood in line at midnight back in October to buy it. I've played it at least 4 times a week since then. I joined a video game forum to talk about it...

Man, I HATE this game!

:biggrin:

I enjoyed it very much. The writing and gameplay were definitely a step up from Fallout 3, and I believe Obsidian did a great job with the engine and time they were afforded.

they did do a good job, the way you could join factions, the weapons, the dialogue and story was decent, the skill/perk/special system, they did do a lot of things right, but the map itself is pretty barren, they didn't do a good job as far as putting in enough content for exploring, they put up a lot of tents and one room shacks bascially, and there's no random events or encounters or factions patrolling the map, and it makes it stupid to travel around the map once you've been to an area once,and if you play the game 50 times its gonna be the exact same thing in the exact same part of the map every time, so the game world is very predictable and it gets repentive very fast, so for playing the the game a couple times its good, but for playing it over and over and over, its not good for that..not if you like cruising around the map.

How did CoD not go down from there? Cod is my favorite game ever for a reason: Very few flaws.

First character was EW and Legion supporter.
So I wouldn't say I fully enjoyed it but I didn't "not" enjoy it either.

Right now I don't enjoy the gameworld.
I don't mind the locations or the fewer amount of dungeons and crap.
But the enemies are far too static to make for an interesting and dynamic gameworld.
It also makes it far too unchallenging and I have to nerf myself.

Other than the gameworld and the crap amount of Legion content I enjoy the game very much.
But I'm on a hiatus from the game until the next DLC or until they fix in a form of scaled enemies and random encounters.

I give it a 70. I had fun for the first 70 percent of the game. Then last 30 just felt crammed and confusing. I rushed through the end of it. I keep telling myself i will play again but it felt like a disappointment at the end.

I really have to contest this. In FO1, you can join the Master, sure; but in FO2, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have to rescue the tribesmen and blow up the Rig. No choices. While in Fallout 3, you can a) let the purifier blow up, B ) activate it by some means, c) activate it and insert FEV.

Compared to this, the MQ of Fallout 3 stacks up pretty decently; it offers you more options at the end than FO1 or FO2 (which also remain linear pretty much the whole way through). Call the plot many things, sure, but more linear than the main plot of FO1&2? That's debatable.

I've honestly never really understood the allegations of linearity leveled at FO3 in the context of FO2.

Yeah, i dont call in linear for that reason, its that it railroaded you, essential NPCs, scripted events you had no control of, i felt as though i was watching the game play without me, or like they made it as if i wouldnt do anything without being told by Dada.

Im not saying F3 was the greatest story...but it at least made you care about it...NV main storyline was lacking and hardly had any definitive moments...from very early on you learn a war is coming...and thats exactly what goes down...on a much smaller scale than it seemed...and basically nothing else at all....no surprises...no variety.

I didnt say you could join the Enclave. Before NV came out they gave the impressions that the reputation system actually mattered...which it did not matter in the slightest...in the end it all comes down to making 1 of 3 choices...which is exactly what Fallout 3 was...good evil or neutral, had you been able to join with the Enclave...things would of been exactly the same as FNV. Basically they tell you the reputation makes a difference, when it in fact hardly makes a difference at all. Yeah you can get different groups to aid you...but once again its very underwhelming..

SPOILERS

I almost [censored] myself when I saw the Boomers come drop that bomb...but was very annoyed when I realized that was it...all those "run around" quests I did for them earned me a 5 second cool thing....I was literally freaking out when I got to fight along side Liberty Prime...that at least felt like a significant battle....when the fight for Hoover Dam felt like a skirmish...

The reputation definentally mattered. You really haven't paying attention to you gameplay if you haven't realized that. Half of everything in the game can be alter by your reputation.

See, that I can understand, although Fallout 2 does the same thing if not to the same extent (Elder is essential and the village being captured is entirely scripted).

Would have been nice if they allowed you an option to basically tell James to screw off and then get caught up in the Enclave attack anyways (to further the main quest).

I thats the whole thing, you have to follow james in the main quest, you have to do his errands, you have to watch him die, it is all fixed, he is essential, along with damn near every named character, essential my ass.

i agree, FO3 had lots of epic type definitative moments, the gnr battle with sarah lyons, the waters of life quest, the way the enclave take over the purifer, while you were in the pipe clearing the pumps, that was suspenseful, also when the enclave show up all over the map after the waters of life quest, some tension there seeing the verti birds land for the first time, also getting kidnapped by the enclave in vault 87, the way they cruise in with col autumn, then having to get out of raven rock, the battle with liberty prime to take back the purifer and even who dares wins after destroying the moblile platform, bethesda put all the elements in the story...drama, suspsense, action and lots of epic moments, it had all the elememts of a good story, so people who say new vegas story is better, i don't think so, the only action, drama and suspense was the last battle at the dam. FO3 had those elements throughout the entire game.

Mother freaking exactly. Main quest wise Fallout 3 was WAY better....and this is coming from someone who wanted to love FNV so badly that I was in denial for %75 of my playthrough....All of those things you list were totally awesome...FNV main quest literally has Zero moments comparable to that....and thats being completely hjonest...It was cool seeing Victor follow me...I mean honestly there was NO OMFG moments at all...Confronting Benny was horribly dissapointing...

I agree with this. The level design of FO3 really appealed to me. I loved the cityscapes, and that first feeling of being in a tunnel and not knowing where it went (if anywhere).

I would give the game a score of 60. The fact is you cant just IGNORE the bugs when judging a game. If this game was bug free i would probably give it a 70. I think every new game should be better than the last and for me NV wasn't even as good as FO3. Thank god its bethesda thats making FO4!

I'd give the game a 40/100 only due to the setting. I myself liked FO3 like 85/100. I think though it was the games setting that put me off. For a post apocalptic world it was far to cheerful in my own mind. I found it hard to empathise with the NCR, Legion, New Vegas citizens. Often I would find myself going on overextended killing sprees and getting far to bored with the game. I've played only about 100 hours though and have only completed the NCR, Wild Card and House storyline so maybe the Legion one is the hidden diamond. Some of the humour in the game with the wild wasteland on makes the game pretty funny but overall the reason it gets 40 is because in my mind its just a really really big expansion pack for fallout 3.

Excellent! It will remain in my library of Wicked Awesome games forever.

60-80 for me. Probably about 70/100

The plot/setting: Basically a western. There's no need for it to be a post-apocalyptic game at all, it could just as easily be a straight out range war western game. I'm not seeing the marvelous plot others are seeing. Kill all the Powder Gangers - nothing happens. Kill Caesar and his camp - nothing happens. If I was the NCR I'd take their disarray as a good moment to cross the river in force and finish them off; but no, the game plods on to the big-battle-at-the-end cliché. I'll agree that the companion plots are better developed, but frankly I'd rather go solo than have an idiot AI constantly jumping in front of me.

The landscape is uninspiring and empty, the lighting is flat and the combat is sparse and repetitive. Everything attacks in mobs. Cazadors aren't fun to fight, just an annoyance. The human enemies are dumb as dirt and easy to spot and kill in the open terrain as they stand stupidly next to their dead comrades - until the final battle when they suddenly develop super human resistance. There's a ton of ammo and weapons with mods and iron sights, but hardly anything to shoot at.

The game is still pretty buggy, more so than Fallout 3. I had to abandon my last character because I started getting CTDs every time an enemy spotted me and turned hostile - and going back to an earlier save didn't cure it.

Fun for one or two plays through, then the lack of exploration, predictability, player channeling and all the fetch quests start to make it boring. I can't compare to F1 or 2 because I never played them (I can't stand isometric games) but Fallout 3 was more polished and had greater longevity (random encounters/enemies, exploration of an interesting environment), and was just more fun to play IMO.

I'd give NV a 90/100. Considering I still play it (well, kind of) 3.5 months after I bought it, I'd say it was a success with me. Compelling and entertaining enough for me to play through the original rash of CTD's I had...and once those were patched away, even better. Haven't had a game hook me like that for a few years at least. I mean, Borderlands was a few weeks of fun gametime and so were a few others, but nothing has svcked me in so completely like NV in a long time.

Thumbs up.