I can say that we both have different opinions in what we want in games, you more of a story and I, more exploring. I have no problem with being super human, I'll just raise my difficulty. I personally don't want to have to have to grind or complete quests just to level up to explore a area, I understand some areas but not a large portion, that's just me though. I think NV was fun and challenging but only for some time. I also never though of lowering or raising the difficulty is going to handicap me. It's just going to balance it out. But we can't all have what we want and I still wait for the day they make a Fallout game everyone can love and have all there demands met. I Doubt that day will ever come but it's nice to dream.

I can share with you a whole lot more interesting location in Fallout 3, can you share with me just 1 or 2 interesting locations in NV ? something worth to remember and talk about, anybody ?

Well, there are the vaults, or are we referring to just locations you find instead of go to for a quest?

Lol @ the DC rubble wall comment . I remember encountering several of those and being annoyed that I had to use the tunnels just to navigate through the DC ruins.

Anyways it seems like some people want Fallout to be another Elder Scrolls but with a post-apocalyptic setting and guns simply because Betheseda is in charge of the series. The Fallout series under Betheseda needs to make itself distinguishable from the Elder Scrolls series and I don't mean just change the setting, lore, world,etc.... The third game didn't do that and people criticized it for being an Oblivion with guns. New Vegas is more like the first two titles and hopefully the new Fallout games continue the trend of setting itself apart from the Elder Scrolls games. And like I said earlier, Betheseda should stop advertising Fallout as being similar as Elder Scrolls since that's why you guys would be disappointed with it since you went expecting just that.

I have the same dream. Fallout 3 I had to handicap myself alot not the case for New Vegas. If your only real problem with New Vegas is there aren't that many trinkets and bobbles to find I am sure are dream can be met. With the adding of more trinkets and bobbles to find. Personally New Vegas has alot to find. Unique weapons, notes, snow globes even rare creatures. Can collect Dog tags and ears! .

I never expected it. Exploration is Bethesda's specialty, not Obsidian's, and I've known from the beginning that Obsidian was making New Vegas. However, now that I've had a taste of post-apocalyptic exploration-based gaming, I want more. It's Bethesda's series now, so I expect them to continue doing what they do best, perhaps while allowing Obsidian to do what they do best. Bethesda isn't going to stop creating worlds for exploration. It just won't happen.

On a side note, was that a critical remark ("Oblivion with guns")? I thought that was a compliment. It's what made me get Fallout 3, in the first place.

Aerotech Office Park
Bitter Springs
Red Rock Canyon
Hoover Dam
New Vegas
Goodsprings
Sloan
Nipton
Novac
REPCONN HQ
Nelson
Cottonwood Cove
Camp Guardian
Broc Flower Cave
Jacobstown
H&H Tool Factory
Freeside
Sunset Sasparilla Bottling Plant
Searchlight

I would list more but it's getting boring.

Well we can always mod in rooms full of useless items and mobs

I am not trying to speak for pentahedron but heres the thing. Fallout had it's own identity. It does not need to be more like Elder scrolls, it needs to be more like FALLOUT like New Vegas is. If you really want Elder scrolls play Elder scrolls. Or find an Elder scrolls mod with Guns.

I believe the world could use more than one exploration series, and you believe something else, but Fallout 3 is a Fallout game, and Bethesda is who defines Fallout, now. Why is either opinion right? As of now, I think it seems that Bethesda made the main series their thing and allowed the traditional Fallout stuff to live on in Obsidian's making, but Bethesda are world-builders. They're not going to be making games like New Vegas, themselves, though, and they aren't going to hand over the series to someone else. I don't want Elder Scrolls when I play Bethesda's Fallout game, I want one of Bethesda's Fallout games, complete with the entire setting, power armor, nuka cola, vaults, and guns included. I like it.

Yes it's a critical remark. It means it's the same game(elder scrolls) reskinned over with guns and slapped with a different IP. Part of it probably has to do with them wanting to appeal to the new ES players they snagged with Oblivion, another to get the FPS crowd, and another probably has to do with laziness and unwillingness to move away from their Oblivion formula. Some critics, especially those who played the first two were very critical of Fallout 3 for good reason. If people are complaining that New Vegas isn't like Fallout 3(Oblivion) then they are doing something right in trying to make it stand out from Elder Scrolls.

So the only thing Bethesda is good at is making worlds full of items that are useless or make you superhuman, populated by enemies weaker or at the same level as you that are not much of a fight? That's all they are good at? It would be nice if they learn from Obsidian, I figured that's why they picked them to make New Vegas while they work on there latest game. So they can learn. They could have picked any company and yet they picked a company full of people that worked on past fallout games. My hope is Beth learns and works with Obsidian on FO4.

If your only problem with New Vegas the lack of items to find or there are deathclaws keeping you from some items? Like I have said in other posts there is so much to find and do in New Vegas. Is it that the items don't give you a boost? You don't like collecting dog tags or ears? You don't like hunting down powerful creatures? Would you rather collect teddy bears?

Story and character development are less importaint then finding bobbleheads and skill books?

1). Betheseda gave the green light to Obsidian and oversaw the creation of New Vegas. So Betheseda are responsible for New Vegas which is an obvious attempt to go back down the route of the older Fallout games. So yes I think this is the direction they are going to be doing in.

2). What you're basically arguing is that you want them to take a Call of Duty approach where they take a game from two developers(or series in this case) and alternate between them, reskinning the engine and selling it as the next in the series(or different IP). Even companies like Bioware and Square Enix can make their games distinguishable from one another in the case of Dragon Age/Mass Effect & Final Fantasy/Dragon Quest. Each series appealing to a different person, not in a attempt to grab players from one series but making the games too similar. Betheseda should and it looks like they are going down that path. The future Elder Scrolls, the past Elder Scrolls, and Fallout 3 will always be there for those just want to explore.

I never said anything about deathclaws, except that they didn't even stop me from getting to the Strip. I don't have any problems with dangerous areas. Nothing is dangerous for my power armored, modded minigun wielding tank, but there's not much to find, even as I can easily crush deathclaws. What superhuman ascension have I mentioned? I like reading terminals, listening to holotapes and finding treasure. I like dungeon-diving, being a scavenger, and hoarding technology of my own as the BoS do. I like stumbling across bizarre locations (Oasis, for example), quests, and collectables. If you don't, fine, but what Bethesda does isn't some small, meager task, otherwise they wouldn't take several years to make each of their games and otherwise, others would do the same. I could just as easily unjustly summarize New Vegas by saying it's just doing a bunch of fetch and return quests to get some useless slides. There is not so much to find in New Vegas. I've tried, and I've found empty locations which leave me wanting. As for the much to do, again, I point towards the fetch and return summarization. Do I believe New Vegas offered nothing that Fallout 3 didn't have? No, I do not. Must people try to summarize my enjoyment as being nothing and pretend I'm liking what isn't there? Again, no they don't. They, or in this case, you, can disagree, but I like what Bethesda does.

Seti18 I guess I did lump you in with other people complants. I guess we have to agree to disagree. I feel there is alot to do in New Vegas. Alot to find and alot to explore. You don't. All in all is that your only issue with New Vegas? not enough to explore? Your not happy with Damage threshold, Iron sites, weapons mods, Awesome story, great character development, better companions and more Original references, return of originl BoS, seeing new factions like the Legion?

Sorry if I am putting words in your mouth, I just get baffled by anyone that wants to "explore" over an awesome story and other things I listed. I have been waiting over ten years for a Fallout like New Vegas. I am baffled by people wanting it to be more like other games over Fallout. Maybe I just need to step back get some sleep..

But routes between settlements are safe except I-15 between Vegas and Primm, and it explains in the game exactly why. they even talk about how places like Novac and the 188 are booming now because of the deathclaws and powder gangers blocking off the most direct caravan routes.

Most of the time, you're only in any danger if you wander off the roads.

As far as linearity goes, I think Fallout 3's main plotline was far more linear than NV's. There was really only one outcome, and only one way to get there. The WORLD of Fallout 3, however, was more open to exploration than the WORLD of NV. You can take or leave the main plot as it suits you, and just lose yourself in the smaller quests, or just explore, then come back and do another piece of the main quest, then just let it sit again for another 50 hours if you want. So the overall experience of Fallout 3 seems less linear. The plot of Fallout 3 was not important to the overall experience. I've played characters who never touched the main plot. This is Bethesda's formula, and when I'm playing a game developed by them, this is what I expect. And they always deliver, and I love them for it.

But NV was developed by Obsidian, and it's not laid out like a Bethesda game. It's laid out like Fallout 1+2. The main plot plays a more central role, and because of that, there is a path it will lead you.

A couple of examples:

There is a physical path you have to take in the beginning, then after awhile the choices start to open up. Like in Fallout 2. You start in Arroyo, then you go to Klamath, then the Den, then you could choose between Modoc or Redding, or maybe shoot to Vault City. The path you took didn't really open up until after the Den. In NV, if you go the way they want you to, you do the big counter-clockwise swing from Goodsprings to Primm to Nipton to Novac to Boulder City to Vegas, then it opens up.

In Fallout 2, if you were really adventurous, you could try to get to New Reno or even NCR early in the game, to get better loot, and find better merchants. Or if you were suicidal you could go all the way to San Fran to get the best arms merchants in the game. I know, because I've done it. But you would have to fight (or avoid) some of the most powerful creatures in the game to get there. Sound familiar?

Where NV loses it's linearity is in the multiple endings. Two different people can have distinct and different outcomes. Fallout 3 doesn't have this. In NV you can actually join the different factions, where in Fallout 3 you had no choice in the matter. No Enclave for you.

I've played the hell out of Fallout 1+2. And compared to them, NV has far more side quests and things to do. It's much bigger. And it does have it's share of exploration, just not as much as Fallout 3. The amount of data they can put on a disk just won't allow it. The story has taken up alot of that space. Bethesda has trained me well though, and I'll be damned if I don't have to look in all the buildings, and and see a damned picnic table in the distance and just HAVE to check it out. And then find nothing. And I don't like being able to run all the way from the 188 to the Gun Runners knowing I won't have an encounter. I won't deny, there's alot of empty space. But I've still found over 200 hours worth of things to do, and there are some top notch moments in NV.

I don't really like damage threshold in New Vegas, as I think it should block all damage completely if of equal or lower value in relation to the DT rating. I want power armor to make me a real tank, for example, but I think the DT in this game is flawed as it seems to defeat the purpose of DT. I appreciate the concept, but it makes automatic weapons a bit less useful and I'm still not satisfied with how effective it makes power armor. I'd prefer DT as in Fallout 1 and 2. As for iron sights, I'm indifferent. I've never played a game with iron sights before, so it's not something I'm particularly attached to. I like the weapon mods. I enjoyed the story. I'm indifferent when it comes to character development, I don't use companions, references in general mean very little to me, I'm indifferent to the BoS (I like any BoS chapter, regardless of differing beliefs), but a new faction is something I welcome. It's a hit and miss thing for me. I fully appreciate some of the different features, but dislike some of the others.

What's this?
A predominantly polite debate comparing two Fallout's without any personal attacks or nonsense?
Rubbish!
It's time for some homerism!

Kidding.

I agree tremendously with the OP.
However, in FO3, I NEVER felt like I was on a scaling system.
Super Mutants were much harder at lvl. 2 than they were at lvl. 22.
But I do agree that I hope Fallout 4 has the more open ended exploration feel to it that was seemingly lacking in NV, at least for some.

EDIT: Nevermind, just looked at the last few pages, the ego's are here. And they've brought the personal attacks with them.

Honestly I was quite disappointed about the snow globes. They were very easy to find and only seven of them. :\ That said my real problem has to be the lack of story within locations. Some had it, most didn't. I;m hoping the dlc will make up for some of this..

Just did a little test in Fallout 3. I literally obliterated a super mutant with 10MM smg on lvl3... :facepalm:



Some people prefer tourism/safari over good written books. Deal with it.
We could use some balance between 'em though.

Yup. Also, i was able to run past sloan to make it into New Vegas at Level 1.

Well, FO1 was kinda linear too

FNV is more fun for me because of fear. In Oblivion, you never really felt fear. You could wander anywhere, go into any cave or dungeon without fear. It was the Goldilocks syndrome. You knew you'd never encounter anything that was too hard (or too easy). Everything was just right. So there were no surprises. No chance of "OMG! WTF is that?! Run!!!" It was just smooth sailing the whole way through, which is boring.

In FNV you can literally turn a corner and run into a Deathclaw who will rip your head off in one hit. That keeps you on your toes, keeps you cautious and leery, and that is where the fun comes from.

Why are you "baffled"? Why can't you just recognize that people like different things? Gaming, like everything, is subjective...your preferences are based on your opinions of what you like. Same with saying it's an awesome story...it is to you, but that doesn't mean it is to everyone. Again, it's all subjective. You prefer Vegas to FO3, and others prefer FO3 to Vegas....what's so hard to understand? If Vegas is so superior to FO3 that it couldn't be debated, it wouldn't be debated...everyone would agree with you....but obviously that's not the case. If your views weren't just your opinions but were undebatable facts, there would only be one gaming company that makes the one game that everybody loves.....talk about linear.

What baffles me is that some of you just can't accept that there's people that like FO3 better than Vegas. Some of you love the "great story", while others who also love a great story, will read a great book, but play a game because they love to "explore" and enjoy an atmosphere, without the need to be led around and have things all fleshed out and explained in a story format. Some people like to wander around and find an interesting place that has nothing to do with "the story",and has a few bits of information and a sense that something happened there, and they think, "hmmm, what happened here?"....but all they get is some tidbits and vague impressions....and that in itself is satisfying....that's exploring. Or wandering into a building that has inhabitants and/or finding ammo, or weapons in crappy shape, but that are still worth scavenging, or reading about something obscure from the past, or whatever....that can be satisfying....that's exploring.

The fact that the main quest can be viewed as an afterthought and the world itself is the heart of the game....that can be satisfying.

I'm not going to argue about which game is "better" because, again, that's an opinion....I'm just trying to unbaffle some of you as to why people can prefer FO3 to Vegas.