If I got 117 hours of fun and enjoyment out of a game...I could care less if I ever played it again.

No, I don't feel as though everything needs to be connected. That aspect of NV is one of the things that, in my opinion, makes the Mojave Wasteland significantly more believable than the Capital Wasteland, though. What I'm saying is that it's a lot easier to create a map full of random locations to find when you kick world continuity and believability down a few notches on the priority list, which is what I think Bethesda did in their design of the Capital Wasteland.

I'm not saying this was wrong...I'm just saying that if I have to choose between a world that feels believable and has continuity versus a world that has a ton of random little things to discover but doesn't make a ton of sense as a place and these locations don't have much global gravity or interaction with one another I'll choose the former every time. I'd prefer not to have to choose, of course. Ideally we could have both, but it seems that with FO3 and NV we either get one or the other and it's simply a matter of what's more important to you as a player.


Yep...I've been an RPG freak (both table-top and electronic) since the mid '80s. Like I said, everyone prioritizes things differently when it comes to things like this. I love huge worlds and exploration as well...it's one of the reasons the Ultima and Wizardry series will always have a place in my heart. It does help with immersion as well, I agree. For me, though, all of the exploration in the world (:P) won't make a game immersive if I don't believe the game world. This is where NV gets me over FO3. Things in the world make sense. FO3 feels like a theme park filled with rides for me to try out, but there's nothing there to make me feel like it's a real place.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be awesome for NV to get the "Bethesda treatment" with all the cool locations peppered around the map. However, if that were to be added back I would have three requests: 1.) the map should be larger so the locations don't feel so crammed together 2.) major locations and goings-on need to be acknowledged by people that live in that area, and 3.) the locations need to be tweaked slightly so that they make more sense. If there's a bunch of resources and pre-war tech that's sitting there unscavenged there had better be a damn good reason for it (it's really well-protected or really well-hidden, for example).

Having lots of things to explore is awesome. The problem with the Capital Wasteland is that it felt, to me, like it was designed specifically for that purpose, and as such wasn't as believable a place as the Mojave Wasteland is.

I'm looking forward to my second playthrough and I'm still on my first playthrough!

Your math doesnt make any sense. Why would you add tax to the hourly cost..... and even if you did tax such a thing, it would probly be like sales tax.. which is 8.25 per dollar... 3.5 cents or 4.2 cents. And reguardless you would just pay tax on the product as a whole and not even tax the hour.... And on top of that enjoyment is all subjective, so trying to put a price on it is useless. And also movies where i go to is only 4 dollars, and the matinee is 2.50. So another factor thats unpredictable

So why are you doing all this useless math?

True... ideally we could have both, as your last paragraph suggests. To be honest the reasons i gravitate towards the sandbox aspect are that i am sufficiently content with FO3's realism and fallout originality, though i admit FNV is closer to the original fallout series as you wrote in the other thread, and that, being spoiled by this aspect of FO3, i was a little disappointed by it being weaker in FNV.

Anyway well said, couldn't have said it better and i hope modders or even Bethesda help FNV achieve that.

I find it the other way around. Fallout 3 had different things happening all the time, whereas New Vegas is its same ol' predictable self.

I agree with the OP. Im on my 2nd playthrough, and I am getting a little bored of it. I remember when Fallout 3 came out I had multiple playthroughs completed before I stopped playing for a while.

No replay value?


Name another game where you get 120+ hours on one playthrough



Exactly :stare:

You got 120+ hours on one playthrough In New Vegas?
I got around 60 hours on two characters. O_O
Starting my third now. ^^,

Thats not exactly replay value though. Being able to do it again and still enjoy it is replay value. The OP obviously stated he would not enjoy it again if he were to do it again.

216 hours FIRST playthrough of FALLOUT3
76 hours FIRST, incomplete playthrough of NEW VEGAS. (I ditched my character when it hit level 30 because, as with all Beth Games except DAGGERFALL, I hit level cap before 1/2 the game was "completed")
60 hours is what I put into a sophisticated shooter like SYSTEM SHOCK 2.

This is not me starting a pissing contest, I'm genuinely amazed you "finished" NEW VEGAS so quickly.

Well since it doesn't have as many dungeons as FO3 (which is a good thing and a little bit of a bad thing) and enemies have fixed locations (Which is a good thing and a little bit of a bad thing) I don't have much to do at lvl 30 really.
Any place on the southern half of the map is low-level and I have no reason to go there anymore since the loot will be crap and enemies won't be a challenge.
20% of the upper half of the map is New Vegas, 10% is invisible walls and 20% is fully explorable.
It doesn't leave much room to explore.
If I can't explore around enemies which are a challenge then I just do quests.
And quests do run out at some point.
So while I like that New Vegas is more of an RPG than FO3 was I don't think that a playthrough can last 90 hours like my FO3 playthroughs did.
Which isn't a bad thing really, it's not a contest of which game can give me the most playtime.
Vegas is more limited when it comes to that part.
And the game also becomes more predictable with each playthrough.
I know for example that to the east of Goodsprings there is the Coyote Den and Quarry and Jacobstown.
While to the south-east there is NCRCF and powder ganger spawns.
To the north is cazadors and giant radscorpions.
Directly to the south are young gecko's and gecko hunters.
So while it's a more realistic game world it do become more and more predictable with each playthrough.

The theme park experience was nice, but there's no way in Hell I'm going to wade through all those pre-scripted "quests" again just so I can get a different slideshow at the end.

I may be misremembering this, but I thought in the original descriptions of the game, NV was going to be much more EXPANSIVE than FO3 -- with a comperable number of inhabited locations, but clumped into groups with big tracts of wasteland in between - much like FO1 and FO2. Representative of the difference between the wide-open western United States, versus the much more crowded New England areas.

In fact, I assumed that's what the whole eating/drinking thing was going to be about -- girding yourself for long cross-country expeditions until you locate a network of fast travel points. As it turned out, the western desert is even MORE crowded than the DC area was. And, with maybe two minutes between towns, eating and drinking are only a nuisance, and not any kind of roleplaying game mechanic.

I wish they could have implemented that kind of tractless wasteland, with regenerating MOBs and randomly generated gear. That's the part of the game I like; I could have re-played that for months. But this game actually had LESS of the wandering experience than FO3. Huge wasted opportunity there.

This is incredibly key. Someone name 5 CRPGs that clearly have better replay value (remember, this assumes you take a "clean out every pixel" approach like the OP took). Take your time; I'll wait.

Well for one you don't have to explore all places again.. you can take a different path.. just because you run in to a town doesn't mean you have to perform the same actions you did on your previous run. It's a sandbox game so it takes some imagination.. Your the story teller.. not the game.

Is there no "random event generator" as there was in fallout 3?

I always enjoyed that aspect while replaying FO3, it seems to be absent in FNV.

I think this could have added alot to the replay value.

I actually went back to FO2 because I got board of my 2nd play through of FNV. I think I just played to heavily for the past two week and got a little burnt out.

as others have said, I doubt many games could hit the 117 hours mark for a full playthrough.

I feel there's plenty of stuff to do in FNV, but since it feels a bit more linear, I feel less inclined to replay.

In FO3 I felt like my characters could develop themselves outside the main quest.

FNV feels like the story is so intertwined with the characters progression that it is hard to feel the same kind of separation from the main quest. Not sure if this is good or bad, but the feeling is much different.

Sometimes I feel like it is comparing apples and oranges. The games are very similar, but deliver a very different feeling for the player.

Not even close to finishing my first time so I wouldn't know.

Where did you guys find all of these random enemies in FO3? Every dungeon had the same enemies in the same locations with only a bit of variance in weapons and loot each time. Enemy types spawned in roughly the same preset areas except in the wasteland. The stuff in the wasteland did not make much sense to me.....how did it come to be robots randomly patrolling around shooting everything in sight for 200 years? There were always raiders spawning in the same raider places with pretty much the same gear set ups depending on level.

There was nothing random about it for me.....but maybe I remember stuff like that easier?

Oh I was talking about random events like the Lazlo Rutherford encounter, the alien ship crash that give you firelance, good ol ben canning, or the cannibal hunters. I dont think I ran in to lazlo until my 5th play through. I really liked that stuff.

2nd playthrough and still discovering new locations, quest and different path to take. Also I didn't get Veronica as companion in my first playthrough(I play this game blind without any manual or spoilers) Now siding with a different faction to see where the story takes me. I'm pretty sure that's replay value?

I think they used the wild wasteland perk for that? I am not sure though.

i am getting very sick of this game i hope they bring out a patch soon cause the amount of times i have had to reset a character because of some bug of glitch is getting close to reaching double digits. i haven't even managed to reach 40 hours yet.

Actually, I found random event in a bunch of fixed location annoying.

If the random event is happing in place that a truly random, like 2 wastelander chasing mole rat between a fight of Super Mutants and Enclave, than it is awesome.

The fact is, you have at least three option after Goodspring (NCRCF, Primm, Sloan) and then you can choose follow the railway, or motorway, or just climb over the mountain.

And Random exploring, I found myself much more amuse in NV; there is so many location near quests but you have to throw yourself there.

I wouldn't say there is NO replay value, but after finishing my second playthrough, I would say that the multiple endings aren't very distinguished from one another. You will always find something new. Whether or not its worth 50-100hrs of your life is up to you.

In my first full playthrough I really got tired of doing quest and figured I wouldn't get anymore playthroughs out of the game.
But I gave it another try and decided to get myself vilified with the NCR as soon as possible. And once I stopped caring about all the QUEST FAILED messages popping up I really started to enjoy myself.
It turned into a bit more of a freeroam game, which is more to my liking and there's a little bit more action.

Playing like this (ignoring quests) I can see some more playthroughs in the future, just not one after the other.

I'm sorry, you don't feel 117 hours is much replay value? You didn't get your money's worth? At $60, that's like 50 cents an hour! I'd say you got your money's worth.