I actually saw an improvement in graphics, I'm looking past the fact its not worth the full price.

Imagine it like this Obsidian and Bethesda both hand you a game. one is FO3 bethesda's Fallout three, The other is FNV Obsidian's fallout three. The only connection between the two game's is E-DE.

We can only wish for expansions this good.

I don't expect or want a totally new game. I want a new chapter in the Fallout 3 vein and I think that's what we're getting.

Do you have this list saved somewhere I notice you post it at least once or twice a day.

It's an expansion that I would pay 100$ for, which would equal 4-5 hours per dollars worth of content.

I would call it an expansion. I don't consider it a new game without a major engine update. Kind of line of crysis and crysis warhead.


Fallout vegas did have the option to update to the newest gamebryo engine . Im guessing they are holding back on this for next fallout and this will be main selling point.

Some games can do good with reusing the same engine. Look at the Source engine that Valve used with Half Life 2 back in 2004/05 which is still in use today although a bit updated and as of now they are working on a new version of the Source engine which is still the same engine just upgraded more with new features added. To be honest its hard to let a engine like that just die out when it is so good on resources and giving you high quality graphics that even a avg computer can run without lag.




Personally I dont think many games today are worth the price they charge. Then again I grew up with pc games that cost $40 when new and 3 months after release they would drop down to $19.99 since the business already made their money back on the item. Now a days you can still see a $40 price on a game 2 years after it came out. For instance Fallout 3 is still $49.99 here even though we have this New Vegas game coming out at the same $49.99 price. I personally think $50 is kind of steep for a game that always has the possibility of not working nor not being to your liking since theres no demo to really try it out on your rig and see what you think.

That was the only way I justified the $50 for Mafia II was I put a good 5 hours worth of screwing around in the Mafia II demo that only gave you 10 mins of driving to get to the mission.

But I did love Fallout 3 and I know Ill love Fallout New Vegas either way. Cant wait to see all the lighting in game and see how they went about doing it, wonder if its like the DC light mod I downloaded for FO3.

I hate this "expansion" crap. "Let's look at everything superficially and show everyone how myopic we are!" Woot!

Yes, Silent Hill, Need For Speed and KOTOR are just like Pong.

I wasn't arguing it's just a glorified expansion. I was giving my criteria for judging that once I get the game. That being how much effort they put into it. I think that's a fair criteria although subjective since I can only guess as how much effort that was. I expect reuse because it many cases it just makes no sense to create the same thing yet again. I do expect more new content than an expansion. That's a fairly high bar since expansions look quite distinct and introduce a good bit of new content. As far as Bethesda is just a publisher the norm is the publisher funds development. They don't just say here's some money, go do something. Easily quantified things are spelled out, i.e. number of quests, lines of dialog, new meshs/textures, ect. The quality is on Obsidian. Bethesda can hold them to an abstract professional quality, but beyond that is pretty iffy. Since they own the rights to Fallout they can control lore aspects and otherwise control more than a publisher typically can, but there's still limits. Easily quantified aspect isn't one of those limits.

Nope this game is most certainly now an expansion..
It's acctully just fallout 3 with a new game box and alls they changed of the game is they added one sign in the capitol wastland to say new vegas.
[sarcasm for you people who arn't good with it]

Fallout 3 had nothing to do with California like Fallout 1 and 2 did, but they still called it Fallout 3. :shrug: From purely a story perspective Fallout 3 is more of a spinoff than New Vegas is.

Edit:
...or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you saying that it shouldn't be 3.5 because 3 and 3.5 should be part of the same story arc, or that it shouldn't be 3.5 because all official numbered releases should be set on the East coast?

Who cares what the graphics are like or that their using the same engine/textures etc. As long as the story is interesting and the world they created pulls you in, nothing else will matter.

most sequels these days are glorified expansions. somtimes even worse than NV, look at any of the recent CODs, any sports game, etc.


not sure why you are just calling this out for NV.

Hellooooo new sig.

I mean really now, I can't remember the last time an expansion, even a standalone one, was actually bigger than the game it was meant to expand.

This. America was an expansion of Great Britain.

Will I still be the bloke from vault 101 or am I gonna be a new guy?

You're a new guy

I'll likely lean that way as well, once I decide to open it.