That's pretty much it. Apparently "everything isn't level scaled so you're always safe" = linear, and not having phat l00t at every single map marker = "poor exploration." :shrug:

I find it all utterly baffling myself...you want linear, dig out Dungeon Siege- now that was linear with a capital L. Nothing but a narrow corridor from beginning to end- in no way resembling New Vegas or Fallout 3. In terms of where you can and can't go, the only difference I've seen between Fallout 3 and New Vegas is where the invisible walls restrict movement. Cliffs in the Mojave I can't cross because I'm strolling over the top until I hit a forcefield, piles of rubble in downtown District of Columbia that I can't cross because I easily walk up them and into a forcefield. Yet somehow one is more linear than the other. Damifino how... :confused:

Only ones I come across are ones at tops of steep slopes and at the edges of cliffs I am not really meant to be on. DC the invisible walls are on the rubble piles. Many times in FO3 I should have been able to get past the rubble but I can't. Anyways the invisible walls of New Vegas and FO3 have not been a problem for me. Only a few locations I have trouble getting to but I don't find it as annoying as going through the DC ruins.

Also, apparently, saying Fallout 3 does anything better = "we must vehemently disagree".

:confused:

I don't see how anybody can say that, here's why. Unless you pretty much didn't play FO3 thoroughly, I could possibly understand but even then it wouldn't make much sense to me. First off, look at the time frame put into FO3 and NV, there's no disagreeing that Bethesda had a much larger time to put detail and a fair amount of things to do and explore into FO3, compared to NV with a much smaller time frame. That's just common sense. Second, like I said before, if you played FO3 until you've seen and did just about every last thing (not including dlc) you would see how linear NV is compared to it. Maybe it's just because I like to explore the wasteland and find it's hidden secrets and stories but NV did not satisfy me at all and left me asking myself "So where's the rest of the wasteland?". I've always been a Bethesda fan and they've delivered what I want, tons of things and areas to explore, NV didn't do that for me. I also didn't see how amazing this story was, better than FO3? Maybe. By a lot? Nah. I would have rather had them put more effort into the exploration than the main story, imo. I thought the Mojave Wasteland was used to there full potential and left me waiting for the dlc just to continue to explore something new.

I've likewise encountered invisible walls in D.C. that were atop rubble slopes I could stumble up half-drunk. :shrug: Bottom line, whichever game you're in if it's the invisible wall and the invisible wall alone that stops your progress, someone's being really lazy/sloppy with their level design. There are non-invisible obstacles in both games that can't be crossed, which makes the invisible ones all the more annoying in either game. Aye?

Maybe rephrasing things would make things clearer. By "linear", many of us mean less exploration-driven and more story-driven.

I'd rather a game have greater story then exploration. What's so great about exploring in FO3 over New Vegas? Many locations in FO3 have nothing there other then skill books. Big deal another way to be super human. The Devs of FO New Vegas had over a decade sitting on ideas for a Fallout. That's alot of time to work on a great story.

My answer is simple, and it's visual indication. Bethesda visually indicated, with rubble, or a fence in one particular area of the mall, that they didn't want you to pass. Obsidian didn't. I still can't see any visual indicator in New Vegas saying "there's an invisible wall here". It just happens.

Thats me just completed FONV for the second time. I hate to admit it but it does not come close 2 FO3! I was so looking forward to this game but it hasnt improved from the last version. which i find unbelievable. looks like obsidian have a lot to learn from bethesda!!

No wonder some of us are confused as all hell, then. "Buzzword bingo" terms like "story-driven" haven't got a damn thing to do with linearity or lack thereof.

They're also a big sign that, to me, reads "all meaningful discussion is gone, time to haul ass." Have fun.

i respect their opinions, but i still dont see how New Vegas is more linear

Many locations in Fallout 3 had some substance in them in the form of several things including, but not limited to, skill books, unique weapons, computer terminals, holotapes, enemies, some actual space to explore, and bobbleheads. Why are you so stubborn that you need to prove that Fallout 3 is inferior to games made by the "original developers" in every way, shape, and form and that those who prefer it have a flawed and inferior opinion?

what kind of things?

I am not saying those that like FO3 are inferior. I just don't understand why exploring is more importaint then story. New Vegas is full of Unique weapons. There are messages and computer terminals, there are snow globes. Yet all I see are people saying "I can't go there because of deathclaws and I am not an ubergod yet! I wish there were skill mags everywhere!" "Why can't the Devs make to so I only face mole Rats and not deathclaws?!"

There are multiple endings that let me know what happens to the people and places, my actions mean something in New Vegas. That to me that and the great story is worth more then walking around collecting bobbleheads and skill books to become a God.

There is plenty to explore and find just people hate that they can't do it at low level. They have to be challenged and become skilled enough to get to those items.

Not everyone has the same tastes. :shrug: I can't explain why I like exploring better, I just do. I feel as if they should have really taken their opportunity with a ruined Vegas and created a ruined, urban area equivalent to the D.C. ruins in exploration value, but then there are people who want many different things. The reason is people aren't all the same.

Counter: Why are you so stubborn that in order to insist Fallout 3 is superior, you must warp terms beyond all reason? For instance, "story-driven" has nothing whatsoever to do with linear or non-linear.

You've insisted New Vegas is worse because it has invisible walls, which Fallout 3 has as well. When this was pointed out, you then stretched believeability with some bogus "visual indicators" crap about hills of rubble- even after I pointed out that some of those hills are so shallow they could be crawled up by a 3-limbed infant.

You claim there is some difference in "exploration" in the two games, and when holes are blown in that claim you start hair-splitting about "substance," which is still a non-difference.

So answer your own question, or better yet: realize you're looking into a mirror, and already know the answer to why rabid New Vegas fans are acting just like rabid Fallout 3 fans. Just like you, and just like me. Think about it. :shrug:

I agree we have different tastes but just because there is "less to explore" does not mean New Vegas is bad. It has way more then FO3. Better story, more quest, marked and unmarked. Multiple endings. Many factions to join. I can wear an enemy factions clothing and sneak past them. Great dialogue, great characters. Companions are more realistic and more! yet exploration is hampered because of deathclaws and people are up in arms?!

Fallout does not need to be more like other Bethesda games it should be more like Fallout IMO.

My confusion stems from how New Vegas is worse than Fallout 3 in the exploration department. Most locations in Fallout 3 were bland, with bland loot, and bland enemies. In one are there might be a building with raiders in it and no loot (Springvale School ring a bell?). Another might be a similar building only with Super Mutants in it instead (Roosevelt Academy). The locations were no more interesting than the ones in Fallout: New Vegas that people complain about. If I had to estimate, I would say about one out of five locations in Fallout 3 had some interesting backstory. Another two in five were quest-related. About a fifth were bland buildings/tents/caves that just had enemies in them. The last fifth just seemed to be there to give an excuse to throw a unique weapon into the game.

I was introduced to the Fallout series through Fallout 3. I bought Fallout 3 because I love The Elder Scrolls games. I just don't see how Fallout: New Vegas is linear or how there is less exploration to partake in.

Besides, I can only explore so many caves or buildings before I want to punt my Xbox across the room. I wanted a game that offered substance and fulfills my occasional desire to go spelunking or quench my bloodlust. Fallout 3 delivered on the latter half of my gaming needs. Fallout: New Vegas covered all of them.

In NV's case, that's just not much. What's so great? Well there is always a story, a holotape, a note, a terminal, a reference, something fun and unexpected! If you looked hard enough I think you could see past more than a skill book. If you have such a problem with being "super human" raise your difficulty and stop complaining about being over powered, especially if your a PC user. Ha! I know, Van Buren or along the lines (can't remember exact name). So they had over a decade of ideas for there Fallout game which is NV. With such a great story already planned out you would think they would have enough time to focus on the wasteland a little more. If you think the story is so great that's you, not me. I've seen better stories in regular fps, not that I don't think it's a decent story, just doesn't deserve the praise it gets or to be the "best thing" about the game. They put no effort into the wasteland. It's linear. Period. If you think it has just as much or even more to explore than FO3, well then buddy I'd suggest you pop that game back in, you've got a lot more things to do.

Don't feel like reading your whole message but Springvale School was more of a location for a small story of raiders in control of the school and there encounters with the ant nest below the school. There was a terminal in there all about it. No loot but a satisfying mini story for one location.

Great thing about New Vegas I have yet to feel super human at any point! The Devs did a great job. I don't understand why people want to be superhuman, why they want exploring over story and real substance. Like I have said in other posts, I hate that in FO3 I have to handiecap myself. I hate having to stay away from a location because I will end up doing the final quest. I rather enemies keep me away till I am stronger. I don't like having to jack up the diffulty level. It can be said if you want the game to be so easy lower the difficulty. With New Vegas I don't have to handiecap myself. The game is fun an challenging. I have to think!

Also I have played FO3 many many times. I have been to every location with a fine toothed comb. All I find is skill mags and bobbleheads.

I've never claimed Fallout 3 was superior in every way, shape, and form. I've claimed it was less linear and superior in exploration. Visual indicators actually play a role in my exploration and I've been stopped by an invisible wall on a seemingly unremarkable slope in New Vegas far more often than I have been stopped by an invisble wall in the D.C. ruins. There IS a difference in exploration in the two games, and substance is actually a very large deal. What the hell is exploration with nothing to explore or nothing to find? Coming from an explorer, I know the difference between exploration in the two, and it is a major difference. Rabid New Vegas fans refuse to accept that Fallout 3 does anything better, anything at all. They come up with excuses involving "more like a Fallout game", "there is no difference in this game on this mechanic" without even explaining why, or "it's larger so it's better". Substance matters in exploration, otherwise I'd be playing Daggerfall as it's far larger than either Fallout 3 or New Vegas with many more locations. Visual indicators do make a large difference. If they attempted to even put a low fence on the hills with invisible walls in New Vegas, I'd get the point and stay away. These large outdoor area just have invisible obstacles without even an attempt at covering them up. The invisible wall blocking off the Great Khans' settlement is fine by me as there is a large rock right where it is. The wall blocking my entrance to the Deathclaw Quarry from Goodsprings had nothing to say "stay away, don't waste your time, and go here to get around instead of hugging the invisible obstacle to find its end". As for the linear definition, my understanding of "linear" is "to be as a line and confining". As such, the setting of New Vegas can be said to be "linear" in it's funneling of players into specific areas and a specific goal (the main story) instead of allowing freeroam exploration.

Thats only you opinion, and the opinion of various members of the Forum, but in my opinion....... is not linear

That's exactly my point. Locations like that gave almost nothing for the gamer. At Springvale School you go in and kill a bunch of raiders and their pets. Then you find a terminal with some diaries about the raiders trying to dig into Vault 101. Once you're done there you go downstairs and kill some ants... The whole thing takes maybe 20 minutes. After the first time you discover the school and clear it out, there isn't a reason to go back in a later playthrough unless you want some easily accessible loot (or have amnesia).

Don't get me wrong. I do love those little mini-stories but that's barely a location and most of Fallout 3's locations have even less than that. Most of them have no backstory or even a unique feel to them. They're just like wasteland loot warehouse stores where you can go to pick up some stuff to sell and move on.

On a side note: You are in fact free to explore to your heart's content at any level in Fallout: New Vegas... Just be prepared to occasionally have a powerful enemy wipe the floor with you. In that way it's very similar to life. You can explore that military base but don't expect that the heavily-armed guards aren't going to try to stop you.