Try another playthrough with things you havnt tried before. Try a melee/unarmed/energy weapon/explosives character assuming you went guns. You might discover a new playstyle you enjoy doing.

Dragon age: Origins.

the main quest wasnt as good as it could have been.

i wish there was more variety in the missions for each diffrent faction

There are at least 3 different ways that I know of to do the quest in Goodsprings, Primm....mojave is a hub used in many quest lines at mid game, McCarran has lots of ways to do the quests.... so on and so forth. By "ways" I do not mean using different skills I mean using DIFFERENT personality types. Trust me...there is a lot of content to discover if you are able to put yourself into a different pair of shoes while walking the mile. Fallout 1,2 were similar in that if you do all available material in 1 play through you will think you have done everything.....I have played the same character type twice and discovered new choices, dialogue, results than the first time. I guess the problem with NV is that it requires the player to have a bit of creativity to enjoy replays.... Just like the first 2 again, you can proceed to anywhere you want from the starting location, but you have to find a path through the dangerous wasteland to do so. It can be done...I have found a few paths through the hills to the east and some are more dangerous than others. Dragon AGE Origins has a lot of options, but EVERY option in dialogue is available EVERY play through...FO NV is not like that....different personality types WILL find different things to say and ways/ends to quests. Almost all of the "fetch" quests can be done while traveling to complete the larger quests On my second play through I completed them easily and efficiently by picking them up and completing them all at the same time. It was not a hassle, but I may have been lucky in that regard. I just do not see how it can be said that there is no variance in the quests on consecutive play-throughs.

You can't compare Fallout NV to Tetris. And Tetris actually has quite a lot of replay value being that it is a puzzle game. It will always be different, and if you like that sort of thing the simplicity of it will never get old. Also which Dragon Age would you be talking about? Origins has a ton of crap in it, and plenty of replay value. Not quite sure where you were going with that.




In Origins defense, that's not exactly true. There are different dialouge options depending on class and race. I'm pretty sure there are some that change depending on skills and your previous choices. Fallout NV does things differently but it is no less diverse than Origins is. They simply follow different models.

I have 70 hours on my first character, just finished, now I'm about to start my Melee-oriented character. I'll let you know if it turns out to be boring.

I guess, because the opponents are not randomly generated and there is not much dungeon crawling the lack of combat variety is what people are talking about. There is variety.... just not the usual kinds.

Er.. did you read what I posted? I said that New Vegas had 'less' replay value than DAO and Tetris, not more. You're agreeing with my point. New Vegas isn't going to hold up to infinite replays like some games, but I think it's a huge step up and can see it still being viable for years with more DLC and mods.

I'm glad that is based on your opinion and not fact. That's pretty much all I have to say about that.

I find it impossible to relate to this complaint. Maybe with FO3's broken (nay, utterly butchered) system where my first character became a god with 90+ in every single skill, and 9+ in every SPECIAL stat- but whatever else Obsidian did for good, bad, or otherwise they took the SPECIAL and skill systems back into Roleplay territory from "Overblown Arcade Game" territory. Back to someplace where what you decide is what your character will be good at, rather than what your character will be good at first before maxing everything else anyway.

There's plenty of replayability for the explorer and experimenter, in fact far more than Fallout 3. But for the stat-maxing "make uber-character, kill everything, I 'beat' it, game over" types, not so much. And that's not the game's fault.

Sure I did, I just didn't read it right

That depends. My character wanted to take over New Vegas and figured it was a good thing to make friends all over before all hell broke loose. The only ones he didn't really connect with were the Omertas and Caesar's Legion. It's perfectly possible to be friends with the Khans and the NCR, though, if you take a diplomatic approach to most quests.

Part of the issue is the ending.

People like value for money, so if the game comes to a clunking stop at the end, they will try to fit as much into a runthrough as they can, because despite that there may still be quests to do and places to see, that first run-through has the 'wow factor'.

And you know, FO:NV may end up having the same problem DA:O had (albeit to a lesser extent) - amazing variability in quest resolution, making you want to play multiple times to see how it works, but it's hard to get the motivation to do it because the stuff surrounding those quest decisions just gets old fast (in DA:O the incredibly tedious combat; in FO:NV, there not being enough interesting world outside the questlines)

But this is just speculation, at least in the case of FO:NV so far. (I know that in DA:O, I wanted to play again to try a different race/class & different decisions, but I just couldn't force myself to play the game again. So far in FO:NV, I did one playthrough, saw alot of ways I could do things differently, and have started a new game - but I'm having a hard time getting through all the "get to the real game" stuff in the beginning.)

New Vegas compared to Fallout 3 has at least double the amount of quests triple the amount of weapons, far larger, and more numerous settlements. I just don't get how people can say it has less replay value then FO3. Is it because you can't become a god in NV? Even though there is fewer long dungeons in NV the vaults in NV are far more challenging, and interesting. Hell I could go through Vault 108 with bare fists with a 20 in unarmed skill, and not take a single point of damage. On my last playthrough of FO3 I did every quest had every skill at 100 without even trying, and I didn't die a single time in the 150+ hours I played that character. I even pumped it up to very hard around 70 hour mark to make things more interesting for me which it didn't.

Completely true, I'm currently idolized with both.

I agree that certain elements Dragon age deminish the replaying value of other things. Like trying new classes. But what did you find tedious about the combat? I found the combat in dragon age one of the best combat systems I have seen so far any rpg, hell even any other game.



Also:


Yep I'm also idolized with both.

I'll rise to the bait.

I think it's very revealing that the OP referred to doing more quests (he only did 1/3 of them??), or replaying the ones he did do with different outcomes, as "just earning my XP differently". If you're not interested the storyline of each quest, and invested in the decisions you make (whether or not from a perspective of good role-playing), why the hell are you playing an RPG?

Also, he made friends with as many factions as possible to get as many quests as possible, which is smart, but overlooks the fact that you're locking yourself out of a significant amount of content that way. It's just fun to choose sides in some of the more conflicted quests and make some enemies. Going middle-of-the-road is missing out.

Interesting that the only concrete suggestion he made was to randomize spawns so that the world map would be more unpredictable. Wouldn't this be "just earning your XP in different spots"?

And of course if you start at one end of the map and methodically comb over every pixel in the game, you're going to end up with a feeling of nowhere left to go when you are done. Randomizing the map isn't going to change this, because exploring random terrain is an empty pursuit. We've all played games with random dungeon generators and there's no sense of discovery - once you've seen every element of the tileset, you've seen everything there is to see. Once you've fought through level 62 of Bottomless Dungeon, do you really care about level 63? Why on earth would you?

Despite his protestations about a shallow story, I get the sense that the OP approached F:NV not as an RPG, but as a first-person shooter with stats. And a really big map with little objectives to complete here and there. He worked it from one end to the other, going through the motions and never really caring about the outcome of anything. Dissecting everything he found and then complaining that there were no surprises left.

yeah i have to avoid the temptation to eat an entire box of chocolates i buy for myself. so i limit myself. if i eat them all at once, i generally don't want to eat another box straight after.


give it some time, try a different build of character, just make the game different for yourself in how you play.

This. Right now I'm on my Kleptomaniac Cowboy playthrough.

that's the thing about all games with multiple paths in the quest line. about 90% of the game is the same no matter what path you take. each faction maybe has their own set of quests, but everything else is the same. playing it three or so times from start to finish following different factions doesn't make it three different games, because you will be repeating most of the game. if you spent 130hrs on a single playthrough, you probably did everything that there is to do, so you probably won't get much in the way of replay value. but for those who breeze past the game in 40hrs-50hrs, they'll probably discover lots of new quests and locations.

Is why I think a lot of people who were introduced to Fallout through #3 think of it as an FPS with RPG elements... because every character you make turns out the same by level 20.

The people places and events are the same, but playing the game with a different skill specialization and personality type will drastically alter who you can talk to, what dialogue options are available, and what quest options are available. This is not like a Bioware RPG where EVERY option is displayed in EVERY encounter with EVERY NPC.

I'll have to get back to you on replay value but, for example, I've played Oblivion 3 times and there's only one ending. I thoroughly enjoyed it. My last game came out even better because of who I helped survive the final battle.

Fallout New Vegas has many companions and I've used Boone and ED-E exclusively in my first game. I'm looking forward to different combinations in other games...and my own character will be different. That's role-playing.

I haven't seen the entire map yet. I haven't met Lily I haven't done everything. Some quests I want to do differently and/or better. I haven't talked with everyone. The game has 4 different endings from what I hear. I'm having a problem thinking it has no replay value. My second games have usually been the most fun because I knew more.

:fallout:

This. He approached it like many players who discovered the entire Fallout franchise with Fallout 3, then played it like a Morrowind/Oblivion powerplayer- where the entire goal is deciding what to do based not on what the character in that situation would do, but what the metagamer at the keyboard thinks will net the most loot, experience, or other benefit.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, in and of itself- I've played all the games I mentioned multiple times, sometimes in a roleplaying mode and sometimes in a powergaming/metagaming mode, and enjoyed every playthrough of every game. I just didn't make the mistake of thinking that an RPG's failure to cater to powergamers or FPS aficionados is a failure of the game.