For the people who've seen my other posts in this forum you know I was VERY disappointed with NV. Not saying it's a bad game, just not nearly as good as Fallout 3 IMO! I want to talk about locations. I remember in one of the interviews with a Obsidian employee, he was being asked about the size comparisons of Fallout 3 and NV. The employee responded (if I remember correctly) that they're about the same size and they put just a massive amount of more detail into non-story related areas. Er.. I don't see this at all. This is obviously much small than Fallout 3, you can't even explore a large majority of the map! And for the locations, pathetic! I don't know if I'm missing it or being to stubborn to see, but where's all the great details put into these locations?! Plus the majority of them aren't near as big of locations in Fallout 3! I mean the whole game feels linear to me! I know and honestly respect the detail put into the dialogue and some of the quests it self but that isn't enough! For me I've been tempted just to go back to playing Fallout 3 but that's beside the point. Does anyone else feel the map it self or the locations are much smaller and not as "detailed" as they said it was? Oh and let's not forget the map sizes..

I love the poll options.

This is an Obsidian RPG. They focus more on the main story, not on the random exploration.

Have you played the original Fallouts? They were MUCH more story based than Fallout 3.

Are you even exploring by the way? The vaults have incredidble stories and many places also have stories; you just have to look harder than you did in your beloved FO3.

I do quite enjoy the poll. It's quite amusing.


As for the game being linear... it kind've is... but it was made that way. Obsidian's goal was to capture as much of the Fallout 3 exploration vibe as they felt they could manage, without compromising the story-driven RPG core that is the game. What this amounts to is a sandbox world... but with a very linear progression... which on paper sounds alright, but in practice can turn some folks off a bit.

If you're playing on a console... well... you deserve whatever you get. (*snickers* Honest! I love consoles. It's a joke!)

If you're playing on the computer, though, rest assured that mods will come out of the woodwork to make the game more suitable to your tastes. And if that doesn't work, well, you can always mod the game yourself!

I, for instance, am making a massive mod to enable the player to break down, construct from scratch, and otherwise repair their weapons using a simulated selection of 'base components'.

There's plenty of options out there for folks who want a different means of playing.

But you're right. At its basics, the game is rather linear. It was a design decision, though. Not some kind of oversight.

As far as the map, yeah, it is hard not to agree. New Vegas has a ton of invisible walls. The game world is not the free-form 'go anywhere, do anything' game that Fallout 3 was. The world of New Vegas is also more barren than Fallout 3's. Whether or not this is a good thing is a matter of taste. Basically, Fallout 3 had so much stuff crammed into it that it was hard (at times) to believe this was after a nuclear war.

The main quest does have a lot more potential paths in it though, which is definitely a plus. I'm not pigeon holed into finding my father or anything. On the other hand, sometimes New Vegas's quest seems to lack direction and urgency (or a mix of urgency and lack of urgency which is really annoying).

The game isn't linear, but it is smaller.

Eh pull got screwed up. I played F1 and F2. I beat the game multiple times and explored every marked and unmarked location. The only amazing vault was vault 11 so easy there. I play console and it's unfortunate we don't have mods but who has dlc first?

Edit: So are you saying NV feels more like after a nuclear war?

I don't see how New Vegas is any more linear than other RPG titles out there. In fact, the branching main quest, faction interactions, andmultiple solutions give you plenty of ways to advance the story.

Then you don't play too many good RPGs. The main quest is great how detailed it is. But it doesn't make up for the rest of the game my friend. There are more side quests than main quests.

As far as linearity, FO3 was much more linear than NV. Having a bunch of disconnected islands of content doesn't make a game less linear...it just means it has more one-off side locations to find. As I've said in a lot of other threads, NV's world feels a lot more alive and believable than FO3's does. I felt FO3's world didn't make much sense and wasn't very convincing.

Overall, if your main priority is having a bunch of little rides to go on dotting the landscape and you don't care whether or not any of these places make sense then you're going to enjoy Fallout 3 more. If you're looking for a believable place full of deep characters and non-linear storytelling then NV is where it's at. It all depends on where your priorities lie as a gamer. For my money NV is by far the better game, but I'm more of an immersion player than a mileage player, so there ya go. I'd rather spend 100 hours in a convincing world than 300 hours in a world that feels like a bunch of disconnected content with little continuity or consequence...if that makes sense.

That's not to say it wouldn't be neat for NV to have more random stuff to discover, but it's not my top priority. Needs to be more spread out and inter-connected, though. I kinda felt like FO3 felt a little too crammed full of stuff that was too close together and too unrelated to the rest of the world.

This.

Fallout 3 Annoyed me so much on its beliveability, I quit several times and played Oblivion. Where does the food come from? How come there is still 200 year old food in plain site? How come there is is still rads in the water? Why are there more raiders than people to raid?

The 2D borders around the Mojave Wasteland world map do not have any relationship to the size of the game world relative to F3's Capital Wasteland. The Mojave Wasteland is not a perfect square. It is taller than it is wide and the boundaries are mostly defined by natural features: the Spring Mountains, Colorado River, etc.

The approximate size of the Mojave Wasteland is 60-65 tiles tall by 40-45 tiles wide, tallest around Nellis AFB, widest around Jacobstown. The size of the Capital Wasteland is 51 tiles by 51 tiles. If anyone wants to open the GECK and load WastelandNV, you can see its exact size.

Of course it feels alive, it wasn't hit by nukes. If it didn't make sense well, I don't know what to tell you. It was pretty easy for me to understand and follow. My main priority is a a game filled with detail every where. A game that isn't rushed or lacking MANY things. Is that asking to much? Yes. But that's the developer's problem, I'm the consumer. Believable? Dude I don't know what game your playing but I don't see how either one is more believable than the other. The story telling was one of the best things about the game. Oh wait.. The only good thing.. My priorities lie in a game that doesn't disappoint me in most of the things it was said to be and was hoping it to be. But we can't have everything or at least some of what we want in this case. So, there you go.

J.E Sawyer comes and saves the day!

You have decimated the "map is too small!" Minority!

Well, there goes that argument.

Dan was right with his "it just feels smaller" outlook.

I don't know; halfway through the main quest of New Vegas I felt as if I already did a lot more than whatever content I could squeeze out of F3 - more NPCs, more settlements, more quests, more stories... There was hardly anything to do in F3 except wander the map to kill the same enemies for the same loot in the same locations over and over again. I never had the feeling I could really accomplish anything. The setting felt lifeless and artificial.
With NV, what you do has an effect on the world and the people therein, and the game acknowledges that. So yeah, that's definitely a good thing in my book.

I can agree. The map at first glance looks smaller, but it is actually the same size.

Thanks Josh for making a wonderful game!

I had a feeling this was the case, and I am very, very happy to have it confirmed that the map in the Pipboy is misleading. I do wish you didn't have so many blank areas show up on the map, though. It had me going for a while that there was a lot to explore once I got the "key" for Mojave Outpost.

That's nice, never said anything about invisible walls but ya know. And thanks for.. tile counting.. It's nice that it isn't a square but that doesn't mean it's larger. I could care less about your tile counting, what I care about is the huge chunks of the map missing where you can't explore. I believe Fallout 3 would let you explore pretty much all of the map (if I remember correctly). Ah and for locations I almost forget, I like how they put locations you couldn't even enter or explore. Examples would be the Northern Passage and BoS Abandoned Bunker.

Did you even read his post? He did not count the missing chunks of land!

More settlements? If I'm correct they are just a few off from each other. Plus like I said below you can't do anything at many of them. Which brings up another topic about the Metro in FO3. Added a lot more area to explore. The NV sewers just don't do it for me.

Edit: Now excuse me, I just didn't read your post lol. So your telling me that the map is larger in tiles through length and width than FO3's map? Damn, if that's correct they made an even worse game than I thought. And just another note but didn't it feel like all the locations were crammed together as well?

I read it. But I don't need excuses for why it's lacking more area. Ya I can explore the rive by swimming up and down it (which I have) but there's not really a point except to get the geography correct.

Well put. Of the major RPG titles in recent years, FO3 had one of the most linear paths. Just because a game has a more open environment does not make it less linear. There were three ways to play FO3 - Good, Bad and Neutral.

NV, on the other hand, seems to have nearly endless possibilities as far as choices go. The reinstatement of the Reputation system gives the player dozens of options when it comes to story advancement. I adore how Obsidian has restored the whole "play one faction against the other" options that were in the original games. I remember when I first started questing for the Powder Gangers and then had to do recon on NCR and find out about their upcoming raid -- then at the last moment, I sided with NCR and conquered the gang that trusted me. It was so nostalgic of the Killian Darkwater vs. Gizmo's Gang conflict in Junktown back in Fallout 1.

As for me, I could give a rat's behind if the environment is overly polished. I want options. Choices as to how my story progresses. Obsidian brought that back to the franchise, and I worship them for it.

That's BS. There are atleast two quests at every settlement, or is involved in that many.

Really?

New Vegas:

1. Freeside.
2. New Vegas.
3. North Vegas.
4. Westside.
5. Jacobstown.
6. Novac.
7. Primm.
8. McCarran
9. The Fort.
10. Hidden Valley
11. Hover Dam.
12. Nellis

Fallout 3:
1. Rivet City
2. Megaton.
3. Arefu (Hardly.)
4. Tenpenny Tower.
5. Underworld.
6. Citidel.

Girdershade DOES NOT COUNT.

But it isn't lacking more area, it is about the same, the map is just taller that it is wide. That is excluding things like the metro of course, which for me isn't missed.