This is a continuation of the thread 'Lack of Dungeons (in FO:NV)' which was Locked by Moderators of this board due to being more than 200+ posts - (silly we know, but hohum)

1. The original thread can be found here http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1136954-lack-of-dungeons/ and to get a good idea of previous comments you are encouraged to read the original Post (OP) and the last 3 or 4 pages of that thread to get a recap of previous views so far . .

2. This thread has a poll - Please do not fill it in and simply leave 1 line comments. If you feel strongly enough about the post that you feel you have to poll then explain why.


Personally I believe there is nowhere near as may good locations or dungeons in this game however again, please read previous comments to see why we feel this way and if you feel opposed explain in intelligent, coherent terms why you don't. 1 Line OMGWTFFFS will naturally get you ridiculed and possibly(?) flamed to death . . with a Heavy Incinerator . . slowly.

So . . comments please and again - please read before posting and some of the previous comments to get a sense of continuation here . .

Have fun

K.

I wish there were more "dungeons" in the game. The ones in Fallout 3 usually had some minor "story" elements or something along those lines. Maybe even just some caves with loot could be fine. No sewers though, I am tired of those.

i feel that even though there are less dungeon type areas there is more detail most other places.

I like more human settlements base from natural caves...even if the town gown from it 200/100/50 years afterward, there should still be people around.

An underground war at Vegas sewer and maintenance would be cool as well.

I don't want "more" dungeons, but it would've been great if the existing ones that didn't already have quest(s) involved had some too to give an incentive to go there in the first place.

No thank you.

Fallout is not a dungeon-crawling franchise, no matter what your friend FO3 told you.

Interesting fact so far though is that after initial polling, while some people have stated that they do not see a need for more dungeons, they still feel that the dungeons that are currently in the game are so lacking, that a lot more adventures are still needed within those places needing greater detail and size. They don't even have to have a lot of loot. People are seeking the thrill, the adventure - which is a topic that I originally posted about. There is a real lack of emotional drama and raw gritty 'reality' that some (a lot) of people are crying out for. The need to get scared, the need to delve into the recesses of the earth exploring, 'prospecting' and finding out terrible / zany secrets deep down underground. People are searching for that 'yes?!' moment . . or simply that 'wow?!' moment that quite simply just isn't there in the same quantities that FO3 had.

Interesting . .

Then you'll be sorely disappointed with Fallout 4 which will be back in Bethesda's dungeony clutches.

Fallout 4 is an upcoming game that will be created and published by Bethesda Softworks after Fallout 3 (2008). Initially, in 2004, Bethesda licensed the rights to create and publish three Fallout games from Interplay. However, in 2007, the company purchased the entire franchise, with Interplay licensing the rights to a Fallout MMORPG.[citation needed]
Pete Hines of Bethesda Softworks said: "The whole reason we went out and acquired the license and that we now own Fallout is that we clearly intended to make more than one. This is not something we're going to do once and then go away and never do it again. When that will be or how long that will be God only knows, but we acquired it specifically because we wanted to own it and develop it and work on it like we do with The Elder Scrolls."

Yeah, the problem is, that was the best part of FO3. Mostly because that's Bethesda's strength - building an interesting stage for their somewhat-boring-and-shallow quests to be set in.

(Whereas Obsidian's strength is their complex web of quests and decisions. FO:NV is meant to be replayed to try a different path through the quests. Generalized "explore the world" feels much weaker than in FO3.)



-----
Oh, and the "what type of dungeons" poll could use an "Any" choice.

I feel the same. There isn't really an incentive to 'tour the wasteland' with so much of their effort having been put into the strip. Given the size of the map (removing all the silly obscure hidden barriers) it could have made this an extremely cool experience. A lot of comments in the previous threads people mentioned that they did not like the subways experience of dungeoneering around DC ruins. However if even merely one dungeon in Fallout:NV ( I am not necessarily talking about Vaults - they are specific to Vault-tec and are engineered to be socio-psychological experiments) was even 1/2 the size of these with the amount of diversity, tricks, adventuring etc etc that was existent in FO3 maybe people would not have felt sooooooo let down. There really is very very little to do in these general one level one room caverns. I'd love somethiing that actually caused me to crouch in terror in darkness because I can hear what's round the next corner - I don't even have to see it to know I'm gonna get scared. Or something that actually causes me to use the skill 'Light Step' as I have seen merely one or two (sadly - really badly placed) disguised frag mines. Someone with an ounce of deviousness could rig a few corridors into or out an area to get a sense of impending doom. It's all about wratcheting up the fear levels, the 'Oh [censored]' as you get crippled from a frag bandolier or Bear Trap causing you to go woozy and 'blind' or can't run properly, just as the monsters wakens up and stares right at you. It doesn't even have to be a 'Mines of Moria' moment dealing death surrounded by hundreds of baby golden geckos. It's the experience . . the visceral emotion they should be going for. Personally at the moment I actually feel very little for FO:NV whereas the previous effort of FO3 leaves me with nothing but admiration and warm snuggly feelings.

The 'any' choice is a bit bland though, don't you think?

Although I fully agree with you on things the game is lacking in (i've also read the previous thread), I think you're making the wrong conclusion and there is a good amount of self serving bias in your conclusion aswell.

"...they still feel that the dungeons that are currently in the game are so lacking, that ... " --> You don't know for a fact that THE REASON for answering those other questions is because they feel the game is so lacking. The sentences that follow are mostly personal beliefs about the game ( may i add i have the same beliefs about this game)


sorry for the nitpicking, but i just can't help myself when it comes to these things

Ok.

1. You agree with my comment about what is lacking but don't agree that I should be inferring or interpreting what people say with what they poll? Strange. You have just wiped out every Marketing Department's raison d'etre.

2. You are entitled to nit-pick You have a voice. As long as you are not to obstreperous in it's use by all means join in . .

3. Self serving bias. Sorry I disagree. I have no interest in that at all bar putting across a message to the developers about what is wrong. I've been involved in it for so long now I fortunately know what to look for and how/why it happened. I don't have a vested interest in dividends or shares in any of the companies so that's a little bit of a misnomer. What pray is your conclusion then concerning what is lacking/missing?

The original comment was due to Valkebus making silly inane and WRONG assumptions about why the previous thread got locked. He has since deleted that post I believe.

Point taken - case closed - move on.

1) I'm not saying you can't interpret the results, i just wanted to point your conclusin isn't based on facts. The conclusion you've drawn (granted i didn't make a mistake in interpreting your interpretation ) is : people who voted "no", still voted on the other things because the game is lacking in ...

There are other posibilities why people who voted no would vote on the other questions. Just because they voted doesn't necessarely mean they think the game is lacking in these aspects.

3) May have used the wrong bias, sorry ... i meant the this bias: "people believe something to be true because it fits their personal paradigm/personal beliefs"

How are they bring offensive. The point of a forum is to discuss different opinions. I have read all the way through Pierces forum and he was never offensive. Pierces forum was closed because after 200 posts a topic has to be closed for some reason in the rules. if you dont beleive me go to pierces topic and go to the last post by a moderator.

"200+ posts so it's time to close this." as said by freddo the moderator.

So I ask you again . . what is your conclusion?

This isn't Psychology 101, this thread is about Dungeons - do you have a point of view concerning it or are you here to stir?

Aaanyway... I am at peace with Obsidian's decision to focus on dynamic questlines in lieu of more and larger dungeons. There have been some very informative replies from longtime Fallout players from before Bethesda got their hands on it and NV seems to be more in line with those games than the games I'm coming from (Elder Scrolls & Fallout 3). I still love and enjoy NV, just to a slightly less degree than 3 and Elder Scrolls. I'm more excited than ever for Elder Scrolls V and I feel like when Fallout 4 is released by Bethesda the dungeons will be back in a big way and the tables will be turned on a discussion like this.

...or, maybe even BOTH sides will be happy?

again .. sorry for the nit-picking, but i couldn't help myself

point of view about dungeons: pretty much the same as yours (it lacks emotion/adventure/detail/... and a couple more dungeons wouldn't hurt)

Not really. Nor is it surprising considering this is Bethesda's official board, most people here were introduced to the series through FO3, and many of them are TES fans. :shrug:



You can't be disappointed by something you've already written off as "not worth my time." That is, unless they hire Obsidian or some such far-fetched event like putting MCA in charge.



FO3 had a best part? Nah, I'm just kidding. Actually, the best parts of FO3 to me were the parts void of lazy game design and writing. I mentioned in a thread earlier that I thought the android quest was quite well done. I despised the impassable piles of rubble which forced me to crawl through countless generic subways.

That was because the large downtown DC areas had to be separated from the aAsteland worldspace due to performance reasons. Sure they could've used gates like in NV, but the rubble was more plausible IMO.

And some of us like the ghoul filled metro tunnels, way out of the league of that wannabe sewer system... Well, maybe Mart will bring his Feral Ghoul Rampage to New Vegas. Still the caves and tunnels being as small as they are, it can never reach the same zombie smashing craziness as the metro tunnels I went to get the Burnmaster in Fallout 3, there must've been thousand of one hit kill ferals with the occasional Rambler and Glowing One in the mix, now that is what i call fun :gun:

And thus New Vegas' dungeons feel disappointing to me. Pintless dungeons have been replaced by pointless side quests.

I wouldn't call any quests or dungeons pointless in either game. Any quest or dungeon is more fun for some people and less fun for others, I think they are all fun on some level and which ones are the best is up to personal taste. My beef is with the amount and size of the dungeons in NV (I fully enjoy the dynamic main quest), but I keep hearing that this is just how Fallout games were before Bethesda got the license. I'm glad I never played them.

Fallout NV was a dry sandwich compared to the previous Fallout. Most of the locations were meaningless without any exploration. We don't need an overabundance of cloned one room shacks that have little to explore in them. We don't need markers that are nothing but dry open areas of land that have nothing to explore. We don't need markers that are nothing but a wrecked car, empty drive in, or empty campsites. I was also one that was dissapointed when I came on the Searchlight airport building thinking, finally something to explore but when I arrived it was only yet another blocked off building but with two crates of over 500 caps each just sitting in front just handed to me. The caves and buildings were too simple and lacking in length. I don't understand why so many building corridors would be collapsed when the exterior of the building looks solid, but then it reflects the cheapness of this game. The simpler buildings like homes and stores should also be unboarded for exploration and looting. It just doesn't make sense to have structures boarded up in a post apocolyptic setting.

I wouldn't mind a couple of more dungeons but I certainly would not like the amount FO3 had.
As for what hey should be, I dunno, caves, sewers, maybe a big building or two, no more vaults though, we have enough as it is.
And it'd be nice with some more backstory at these locations, doesn't need a quest or anything but a holotape or two and some details around the place which implies a story taking place.

But if they do add them they should all be high level and not player or location or zone scaled, all new one's should be high level and incredibly dangerous.

re: underlined part -

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about - the random "dungeons" to explore, the parts that had nothing to do with quests, had great stories in the terminal text / notes / set decoration. My typical ur-example is LOB Enterprises - that place is wonderful. Also, the terminal text from the nurses at Germantown Police HQ, the diaries/etc from the people in the experimental vaults, Hubris Comics, etc. The writing in these places was the best in the game.

(And about set decoration telling a story - anyone else notice the one sewer near the capital building, where the guy tried to jump his motorcycle over a wrecked car, but ended up killing himself? There's a whole little story there, just in the way they arranged clutter items..... )

I would not mind larger dungeons... I think FO3 had large dungeons with a fewer creatures per sq. ft. in them while NV has small dungeons that are more concentrated. I do not need a ton of dungeons to enjoy an RPG, but it does not hurt to have a few spacious ones. FO3 subway tunnels would have been fine if they weren't such a maze.... My first time playing it took me like 5-6 hours to find the GNR station and had to kill respawns of ghouls and raiders 3-4 times in the process. I almost quit playing the game at that point because it felt like a mindless grind fest. The second time through took like 15-30 minutes because I found an entrance with a BoS marker on it and followed the marks... but if you just "explore" the region it was an example of what you can do WRONG with an expansive dungeon system. People talk about the Dunwich building all the time as an example of a great dungeon. It did have some atmosphere (great reads on the terminals), but I found it pretty boring (when will it end?) and the mild anticipation for the ghoul at the end was met with huge disappointment when I shot him in the head. I was expecting something sinister and possibly difficult. A revelation through notes at the end would have satisfied me more than an impotent NPC. The deathclaw sanctuary was alright but incredibly easy to pick them off as they patrolled the base of the cave. The sewers filled with deathclaw was a *yawn* and a half. I guess, like NV, the vaults were the highlight and the other dungeons were lackluster in their own ways. The NV ones gave me a quick shot of adrenaline and did not involve spending hours wandering through them trying to find their purpose. I should say that the FO3 dungeons built suspense just by the fact it took so long to get through them and was probably why I always felt their conclusions were hollow....

I guess the Chryslus building was the mutant dungeon, Dunwich for ghouls, Army Depot for robots, Death Caw sanctuary for... you know, Flooded caverns or whatever it was called for mirelurks, the Talon company base for humans, Bear den for yao-gui ....They were split up into dungeons for different opponent types. They were more aesthetically appealing, yet I did not get any more satisfaction out of them. I know, I know... it is all a matter of personal preference and it would be like trying to compare the dungeon expansion packs for the Baldur's gate games with those included in the original title. The difference being the RPG type presented. NV is not a dungeon crawler and FO3 is... and they will always be different.

Granted, you can bypass most of the main story and just head straight from the intro area to the vault holding your father, but you do not have any clues that would send you in that direction. I mean your father left the vault like a few hours before you and you can head straight there, but it sends you on a wild goose chase....saying he has been all over. The continuity problems in quests are best for another thread I guess.


All the meaningless dribble aside, there were no lack of dungeons in NV as the title suggests, but some of them lacked in scale.