Added some.

Doh''! -Slaps Head-

I am really tired right now. Thanks for the help! I know that those settlements are there btw.

Well Obsidian pretty much screwed the karma system. I feel that the open environment needs just as much attention as the story. they did a great job putting in how your viewed through the factions you've done work for or your with. And the story didn't feel that much bigger than FO3's. It was, but not by much imo.

Why does it matter how much bigger the story is? The point is that it has much more depth.

After the initial routing south to Primm the game stopped feeling so linear to me (as if you're being shunting along from one cut-scene driven story piece to another). I actually was all over the smaller settlements and the entire map for 35+ hours before I set foot on The Strip. I cultivated reputation with numerous factions and took getting to the city at my own pace. No, now that I'm at about 60 hours it definitely doesn't feel linear.

C'mon, don't make me get on FO3 to compare these. And there are more settlements than that my friend but I can't argue that with you since I don't have a map up of FO3. And arn't these all a cluttered mess of areas full of people? Why not just count it as one huge settlement.. Either way this was a fun argument. I'm going to bed as well, see ya peoples.

This topic started off reasonable enough, I thought...


... unfortunately, the OP seems to have gone off on a tangent which I can't even begin to follow, much less justify.


It seems to me that, where originally you were asking a question: 'Is this game more linear than it looks at first?' ... you have now devolved into making baseless claims and accusations about the CONTENT of the game. Is the game world bigger? No. Not really. It's right around the same size. It might even be exactly the same size. I'm not sure. I can't do math very well... so I'll rely on J.E. Sawyer's reliable tile counting.

As for the metro? It was HIGHLY unpopular. Even though I loved it... I understand why folks didn't.

Furthermore... there is no subway system in Nevada. There's -barely- a functional monorail system! That's all true to real-life. Which is what New Vegas conveys BEST. It feels like you're seeing a REAL place... as it REALLY exists... only slightly skewed into the Fallout style.


I don't know what you were looking for when you made this topic, mate... but I'm obviously thinking you're not going to find it.

Since there's nothing constructive or... well... even rational that I think you want to hear... I'm just gonna have to drop out of this one. These things always have a way of turning from making sense... to becoming 'subjective' hissy-fits.

Not my scene.

Cheers.

Fallout 3 had very few real settlements. All of the settlements he has listed have their own unique quests, their own unique attractions, or at the very least are involved with a couple of quests. As well as the ones I added.

For the record: I'm not putting down Fallout 3. I enjoyed the game. Just saying what I know.

FO:NV is sorta set like a tree to me. it starts at the trunk and work your way up to many different branches of how the game could end. remember this is obsidian (story rpgs) not bethesda (sandbox rpgs)

Yes, the mighty Ceasar's Legion of about 20 NPC's in the Fort was very belivable and invisible walls everywhere helped immensely because being able to walk up hills would be totally unreal. But that irradiated water in FO3 was just horrible...

Well put. For example, one of my favourite RPGs is Vampire Bloodlines. Those who've played it know that it takes place on a tiny map, and yet gives you so much to do, and options how to do it. It's not about "exploration", it's about characters, stories, choices and consequences. To me, that matters most in any RPG.
Tastes differ, so others will disagree with me, but all the repetitive metro tunnels and ruined buildings in F3 didn't feel like actual content to me - they were filler. I remember how I searched the map, trying to find more settlements like Megaton and Rivet city, until I realized there were hardly any.

I'm also in the camp of FO:NV being leaps and bounds better then FO3.

C what I did thur?
Bias Much?

I think I discovered the pattern for forum posts regarding Fallout!

The OP starts a thread.
People post in agreement or disagreement.
Normal conversation ensues.
Someone says Fallout 3 is better than Fallout: New Vegas.
People split into groups.
The groups disagree with each other.
Baseless claims are made that FNV is worse than Fallout 3.
Someone calls someone a troll.
OP loses interest in his/her own topic.
Thread expands to five pages of different sides calling each other idiots for thinking the way they do.
Moderators step in and close the thread.

Then it starts all over again...

:thumbsup:



Believable as in setting being more logical towards what has happened - not as in abstractions of population count being accurate - not to mention, I still haven't found any invisible walls where there shouldn't be one (like at almost vertical walls).

It's definitely not linear. And the map is equal to if not bigger than Fallout 3's, it just seems smaller because in the Pip-Boy there are unscalable mountains on the edges.

Washington Monument had, count them, 3! Three! One more then two! BoS members there. I don't call that a settlement.

So...should we start counting the Casinos, Kings Impersonate school and Old Mormon Fort settlements?

Arefu
Republic of Dave
Washington Monument
GNR plaza
Vault 101
Raven Rock
Jefferson Memorial
Big Town
Girdershade

These in my mind are not settlements.

To me a settlement has to have a merchant that i can use or a doctor, otherwize to me its just exp or a blip on the radar

The only real settlements in Fallout 3 to me were Megaton and Rivet City...

What that has to do with New Vegas being linear? No idea.

Do I think its linear? Maybe a bit. Some of the terrain is linearly placed as if i'm playing some sort of MMORPG. The path to the Great Khan valley or Jacobs town come to mind. The main quest also has you do practically the same thing no matter what side you choose.

Regardless of this, there is still plenty of exploring to do in New Vegas, tons of miscellaneous quests and tons of loot. And when it comes down to it , at the end of the day all I care about is running around with some phat lewt.

Tenpenny tower was a "settlement" as it has everything Megaton and Rivet city had.

Let's be honest here. None of us should care which game has more settlements. What we should care about is which game's settlements improve it the most.

Shocking huh?

VaultTecBoy, you don't like the game because you've already made up your mind and are hellbound to not like it no matter what others say. Given that, I fail to see the point in coming onto the forum to try to find others to validate your decision. You've already made it.

On an unrelated note, I honestly don't understand the folk who dislike NV while simultaneously singing the virtues of FO3. Thread after thread I see different people complain about invisible walls while ranting about how great DC was despite the fact it was blocked off by tons of impassable rubble. Thread after thread I see different people complain about NV being "too linear" and "not having enough dungeons" and that the ones we get are "too samey" while praising the metro tunnels in DC which were the epitome of awful, linear, samey "dungeons". I just... can't any of you see the hypocrisy?

Not shocking at all. Quality over quantity, always.

I'd rather spend hours messing around on the Vegas strip than 15 minutes of wandering around a town founded by primitive mouth-breathers, made out of scrap metal with a bomb at the center, the structure of which defies any notion of being a somewhat livable area.

Let's see, FO3:
GNR
.
.
.
.
.
Citadel
.
.
.
.
Nope, that's it.

NV:
Cottonwood Cove is kinda boring, that's about it.....