FO3's features/choices/story/immersion were ok for me but still they lack in comparison to Morrowind like you said. I admit FNV was more complete in that aspect and resembled the original fallout series more.
But, as you say, it lacks openess and feels linear. Not linear in the perspective of the main quest choices to which some refer, linear in it's "sandbox aspect".
Now, when comparing FO3 with FNV people should have in mind that both of these aspects count.

And on a side note for those defending FNV so vigorously, many people appreciated that sandbox aspect of FO3 and since these are the FNV forums, it's only logical people will complain about the cons of FNV. If we can have both, now, that would be perfect, and i think most will agree. So, in order to have both in future products, whether they are dlc's, patches or sequels people should refer to what did not please them and that doesn't mean that they didn't like FNV's features and improvements.

of course it's linear. New Vegas is the battle for Hoover Dam, just as FO3 was Project Purity. You can wander off and do other stuff, but ultimately the game ushers you along to the finale. Which is NOT non-Linear - if it was non-linear, I would be able to go fight at the dam and then go off and do the other stuff.

Linear means you have to do x to get to Y to do z which will let you xyz. So, in that respect, of course it is linear. However, in the devs defence, to make a non-linear game would involve about 10,000 endings.

I know, originally, I said I was done here... but since you've chosen to address me directly with questions, and they -are- reasonable questions, I will do my best to answer you in earnest.

First of all... yes, I've played Morrowind. In fact, I've played so much Morrowind that I've had to replace my disk repeatedly, due to it melting down in my drive on more than one occasion. Morrowind is, as far as I am concerned, the HEIGHT of what a Bethesda-styled game can be. It is, with all of its faults, still the closest they have ever gotten to truly perfecting the formula.

So, that's out of the way. Now, onto the second important part of your post: Why are Oblivion's and Fallout 3's storylines so terrible?


The reasoning for this is clear... someone told them 'Gamers these days want all kinds of voiced dialogues in their game... they don't want to have to READ... and if we get some big named celebrities, we'll make even more money off of fans of folks like Patrick Stewart, Etc, Etc'. On paper, that would be fine! Voiced dialogue was actually something I would have liked... had it been done with any kind of decency.

Most folks will agree. Six voice actors and one or two 'big name' talents does not a WORLD make... and so Oblivion's dialogue suffered. Why? Because you can't just make a game in which the player is one of any five or so races... and can talk to somewhere round-about a thousand or so NPC's (I don't know any real numbers off the top of my head... I'm just throwing random ones out there, so don't hold me to them)... and expect that the dialogue isn't going to suffer.

If you don't PAY at least five different people to voice the SAME lines something like 100 different times... in 100 different inflections... with 100 different EMOTIONS... blah... you get the point, right? It's doomed.

You just can't reasonably do it.

So not only did the PLAYER not get a voice, which would have DRAMATICALLY helped the gameplay for both Fallout 3 and Oblivion... but the unvoiced options which you could choose from had to be dumbed down and limited in order for them to be able to AFFORD to have voiced responses.

But because we're all just big dumb apes, we don't care about content. We just want the flashiest graphics and the prettiest looking armor.


Don't get me wrong. I love Oblivion as much as any other game! It finally let me SIT in the damn chairs in my house!

How could I argue with that?


That being said... it was the beginning of the end, as well. Since Oblivion, Fallout 3 has come to adopt MOST of its weaknesses and only a very small number of the old strengths which had survived from Morrowind. Gone was the storytelling, and in-depth plot. Gone was the great depth of written lore... replaced by the more 'Fallout-ish' vague documents and histories, recorded in Holotapes... or largely lost forever, save for some scrambled bits of computer data.

It was, in the end, a failed attempt for Bethesda to hook the old-school Fallout fan.

What it also was, was a failure to cash in on the true POTENTIAL of Bethesda now owning Fallout. Bethesda, the once-masters of Lore and Storytelling, entirely failed to entice the player with any kind of meaningful story... save for the few who found chasing down an elusive father, and playing 'generic messiah to the wastes' anything approaching 'satisfactory story depth'.

Bethesda was handed a golden opportunity. Their strongest suits, factional rivalries... deep stories with deeper lore... could have lent itself AMAZINGLY to a game like Fallout. An older Bethesda may even have done the game justice... but alas... the Bethesda Softworks of Today is a company like any other... and the only thing that matters now is the bottom line, not innovation or a strong sense of quality.


Lastly, I will address your comment about Obsidan changing the formula again.


Obsidian is not a company that, usually, makes a game Fallout 3... a wide-open sandbox of post-apocalyptic meandering.

Obsidian is, more than anything, a company that produces games with a strong central storyline and deeply intricate plots which interweave into such a way that the player is forced to really think about what it is he or she is doing. That's what they DO... and for the most part, they do it very well. They've had a great many issues with technical stability damn near -every- time they launch a game... and -still- they have fans who rave that, if the damn BUGS just weren't there, so on and so forth.

In New Vegas, they did what they do best. They crafted a strong story, and they dropped the player into the middle of it, and they said 'Here's your quest, now hop to it.' And I won't lie... I have greatly enjoyed the story of New Vegas. I loved discovering the aims and goals of the various factions, pitting so and so against this other group, and just generally being a menace to everyone.

You say they made it like a Bioware game... but that anology doesn't really work on me, because I -love- Bioware games. Even though I see no resemblance to a Bioware title anywhere in New Vegas, I wouldn't be objecting at all if I -did-.

You might have to actually explain what it is you don't like about the game in order for me to more accurately assess why or how the decision was made to make it that way.

It sounds to me, though, like you bought New Vegas with the expectations that Obsidian was just going to make another Fallout 3 clone, and what you got did not meet those expectations.

Or maybe you were trying to suggest that you expected Obsidian to somehow attempt to out-Bethesda Bethesda Softworks?

I'm not sure. Maybe you could clarify this thought a little more for me, as well. I really -am- interested in hearing what you think, and trying to understand where it is you're coming from. I think everyone's opinion is valid... so don't feel like I'm challenging your feelings on the matter or any such thing. That would certainly not be the case.

I only glanced through the thread, and a few ppl hit the mark for me.

When I played Morrowind, it really felt like a bigger place than Oblivion, eventhough Oblivion is larger in terms of actual size.
Maybe it's because Morrowind forced you to run around, artificially lengthening the game, whereas Oblivion lets you have a fast mount and have fast travel.

When I played Fallout 3, it too felt like a huge place. Now that I read the thread title, New Vegas does "feel" more linear than Fallout 3.
It could be because Fallout 3 had a really short main story, and allowed you to explore more.

Someone mentioned that it could be just a trick of the mind. I very much agree with this. Morrowind is to Oblivion what Fallout 3 is to New Vegas to me.

In the end I think New Vegas is better. But I have experienced this "trick of the mind".

Yes that's what linear means indeed, all main quests have to be kinda linear, there can be no other way ofcourse, let's drop that though cause it's not the point.

But that's exactly it... every RPG is linear, in a sense.

Without the linear element of a story, there's no ROLE for the player-character to fill. What you have, then, is a game without a plot or purpose. More meaningless drivel without any reason for the player to want to play it.


New Vegas is linear in a different way. The world is set up so as to guide you in a progressive path... rather than simply saying "Look, here's a huge world... wander aimlessly and come back whenever you feel like it".

Instead, New Vegas says: "Here's your quest. Here's the world. Here's the road to get to your quest. Explore along the way."


It's a difference which has put off a lot of folks, what were expecting just another Fallout 3. For those who can accept it for what it is... the game is much more enjoyable. For those who insist on trying to make of it something it is not... well... they're not going to have as much fun.

Ok putting 60 or so hours into my second play thru. I don't understand how ANYBODY can think this game is linear. As far as the main quests go, I really don't consider it linear being as you have FOUR different alternative routs in which to take, each with multiple ways to complete. But not only are the main quests versatile, and you can pretty much do them in any order you want( assuming you don't glitch them...) but there are TONS of side quests. It seems like every new area I go to there is a quest somewhere around to be found. I seriously don't understand.

You wanna talk about a linear game, try Final Fantasy 13. That has to e the most straight forward beeline linear game in existence. RPG wise. The game, if you can even call it a game since you can just spam auto the entire game and come out on top,practically forces you down a straight path. There is NO exploring until the very end , and that's limited. The dungeons are all basically single paths. I mean you can seriously play the "game" blindfolded start to finish.

So next time you wanna let the words"Fallout New Vegas is linear" slip out your mouth or fingers. Stop, think a moment. How many choices are given to you. How many paths are there for you travel down and reach the same destination. Is the game really linear, or are you just walking yourself down a linear path. I'm willing to bet you're doing it yourself. I don't see anything linear about Fallout New Vegas. Hell depending on how you do the main quests you can get to the end and decide to switch sides and boot to ass your former allies.

Can't speak for nobody else, but as far as I'm concerned the game is pretty awesome. Minus my energy weapon gripes and the all too occasional glitches.

The game feels linear because you are softly guided on rails from location to location. Straying off the path early on will get you killed. This game is a free roam RPG but I can bet well over 95% of players who played it went..

That was their choice. They were not forced to go that route. If that's the case. Every game ever created is linear. You can use that argument on anything.

Using over exaggeration doesnt make your point any better you know?

You can't really compare final fantasy series to FNV, it is supposed to be linear and that's what makes it what it is (and it is a great game lol).

As for me, i wanted to see the openess of FO3, Morrowind and even Oblivion in FNV, combined with its awesome characteristics. Obsidian has its way i know , i've played every single one of its games (and it's a great company). But what i hope is that someone will do something about it in the future.

There are several mods out already that remove the invisible walls. There is a mod for FO3 that replaces the entire Main Quest. So yes, they can.

I agree with the notions about the engine and both games having huge shortcomings, but the only way I see the ball being dropped with the Legion is the player having so little to do with them in comparison to the NCR. Few more idle NPCs in the fort would've of course changed the feel a bit there, but that really wouldn't add anything major to it.

Or Legion actually occupy Nipton, or Legion quest from Nelson.

Pretty much ALL games of this type are linear in one way or another, but thats if you want to follow the breadcrumbs handed to you, or you want to do things your own way. Which thankfully F:NV for the most part gives us that ability to stumble across parts of the MQ as we please.

You can get to Vegas straight from leaving the Doc's house, linear it ain't.
Just don't expect to get there guns blazing, unless you like getting your backside torn off by Deathclaws.
Maybe try sneaking once in a while and ignoring the MQ altogether.

That sounds about right -- it's how my first playthrough went (with a detour to the Mojave Outpost). And that's the linear path, put there for people who want to play the game but aren't fussed about exploring every nook and cranny. It's also, if you want to see it that way, a sort of extended tutorial. By the time you hit the strip you've tested most of your abilities and gotten to level 6 or so.
I doubt this is the route taken by players on their second playthrough, though. I was level 14 at the end of my first; Now I'm on a character who was level 30 before I even started the MQ.
The game is linear if you want it to be.

when was the last time you walked up a 90 degree hill with poor footing and sandy soil. and there were more than 20 NPC's in the Fort

I wasn't. And if I was it's because you're being overly harsh on the game.I stand by my statement.


Sure I can. I just did =P And I didn't compare Nev Vegas to the series, I compared it to 13. Just one game, one horrible game. I would rather not consider it part of the Final Fantasy series honestly. And no, they are not supposed to be linear. You have simply gotten use to the linear qualities of such games. If you go back a bit, juuuust a bit. Lets say Final Fantasy 6 (3 in the states) that game was FAR from linear. And it was on the damn Super Nintendo. Seven wasn't that linear either, nor was 8, I forget 9, 10 was pretty all over the place near the end, 11 oh wait thats the mmo..., 12 wasn't all that linear either. 13...............................................................................................................................So yeah, they aren't "supposed" to be linear. Look at RPG's like Dragon Age Origins, that's anything but linear.

When it's all said and done, games are supposed to guide you somewhat. If they don't you WILL get frustrated, and eventually pissed the [censored] off. I have played games like that, I disliked them so much their names have been stricken from my memory. All I know is, they svcked. Lets say none of New Vegas's quest were connected. You were just dropped in the game without a word of direction and no clue where to go. How long until you get tired of wandering around aimlessly, going from place to place hoping to find some hint or order. Games like that generally don't do to well. You should really be careful what you ask for. Because hypothetically speaking Bethesda/Obsidian could do that. Start you in a town with no direction. Let you just wander, never telling you if you're going anywhere of importance. Why guide the player when they can wander around talking to every NPC they see hoping it has something for them to do. That would be awesome, I'm sure that game would have record sales.

I've completed all FF games and i am amazed you don't consider -6 for example- as linear and that are not supposed to be like that, so we totally disagree about that and that's it.


Ye indeed that's how the majority of the gaming community is nowadays. Arrows and exclamation marks everywhere showing you even when to ...fart.


I don't think anyone said they should be like that. Even the hardest games give you hints.


Oh i know what i ask for.

Thestart is linear, but beyond that it is all free form.
No one is going north, east or north east at the start, Cazadors, Scorpions and Deathclaws see to that.
But that said, it is perhaps the first 15% of the game.
If that.

Lineral? I've played the game for 64 hours now and i think only about 4-5 of that went into the main quest.. o.o

Same opinion about FF isn't linear, if not one of the least linear JRPG series; and that abomination which is call XIII, trice be damn, still have the "non-linear" highland part.

[quote name='Seremoth' date='10 November 2010 - 08:10 AM' timestamp='1289394607' post='16660178']
You can't really compare final fantasy series to FNV, it is supposed to be linear and that's what makes it what it is (and it is a great game lol).


yea i spent, 13 hours on FF13, i gave up on that game being good about 5-6 hours in an wanted to beat it so i could talk sh*t without anybody disputing me, i have yet to pick the game back up though (im at the part where you only control sazh an vanille, the gayest part ever, seriously 13 hours of game time an i can only control 2 characters, am i the only person that sees something wrong with that?) that game is a game on training wheels, i think my 5 year old is able to play that game, FF10 wasnt linear, i dont remember being having to actually continue the quest for the aeons, jesus i cant remember most of that stuff, and FF7 was even may epic than 10 was, 13 was a sh*t storm, imo, what kind of thread is this again?

My only complaint is that New Vegas seems to want to suggest that Easy Pete is this Chuck Norris of a man who can single-handedly fend off all the Deathclaws, Cazadors, Giant Scorpions and Khans north of Goodsprings. And Sunny Smiles insists that those Geckos are super freaking dangerous while completely oblivious to all of the above mentioned threats.