To me Fallout 3 felt bit more like horrorgame rather than fallout, but new vegas is alot better, atleast it feels like player has to deal with humanoids alot more than in fallout 3 and less with scary monsters, which is much more fun and feels more like roleplaying and less like horror game imo. I just hope in coming fallout games and maybe hopefully elderscrolls too there would be less horror such as feral ghouls in dark scary places.

Also new vegas map design is great, the wasteland feels alot more interesting than in fallout 3, exploring is somehow more interesting. I think there was too much urban environment in fallout 3 which made it less fun.

Also huge thanks for making such a long game! Its great that you used all fallout 3 stuff, even it was already seen, its really really worth it because now the gameplay lasts so long and there is loads of content =) EA should learn from you, they svck, you rock ! GG

I completely disagree, especially with your exploring comment. I can't stand New Vegas' exploration. The invisible walls and lack of substance just don't seem to be any type of improvement, to me. If we're talking about atmosphere, that could be something else, although I prefer Fallout 3's, but I'm curious to know what you mean by "exploration" and I love urban areas. How better to observe the ruined past than with actual ruins, is what I think. New Vegas doesn't feel very post-apocalyptic, to me, without these dark, eerie, and ruined areas. :shrug:

Fallout 3 was set right in the middle of a bombed/irradiated area so that's why there were so many more mutants and ghouls and other monsters (plus being right in a very populated area, it meant more people to be mutated).

I must say for the most part I prefer New Vegas exploration. The mountains bug me, but I hated having to use the Subway system in 3 to get everywhere. I just want to walk from place to place as the crow flies as much as is humanly possible, I don't want to have to go through tunnels and navigate cities with blocked off areas because of fallen rubble and such.

The lack of plant life in FO3 was very unrealistic. Radiation would have decayed enough to allow FONV amounts of vegetation in DC. This alone makes NV have a much better feel than FO3.

Spot on mate! have to agree with this whole paragraph and exploration(albeit, F3 is bigger, NV takes a more realistic non-diablo lootesque approach). :celebration:

200 years after the war =/= endless green tinted desolate ruins filled with ilogically placed cannon fodders. And annoying metro stations.

Because Fallout is known for its realism

There's a difference between "annoying realism" and "plausibility". Just because it's a game does not mean we have to dismiss stuff that makes sense. Would you like flying radioactive Unicorns too? :laugh:

Still, I know that East HAS been hit much more harder than other areas so... :shrug: