1. F1 is sure not to win. Not everybody thinks that game is the best. Just because it sold more doesnt mean anything.
2.Sure
3.F3's world is far more interesting than a [censored] boring Desert like seriously.
4.Just because theres more doenst mean there better. There is totatly a lack of stuff to do. Not much exploration or buildings that are worth exploring. Filled to the brim with great quests dont make me laugh. Some of those are "go fetch me this kinda quest."
5.Lets hope Obsidain learned a great deal from what they did....not to make another game.

People of this forum are not really a reliable take on all people playing the game, nor is it really indicative of the reasons people might get bored. You know. Polls in discussion forums like this are misleading, and quite frankly if you blindly believe one poll, you're just being dense. There have been plenty of poll about which game is better, and New Vegas has won everyone of them that I've seen. Does that make NV being objectively a better game a word of truth? By your logic it does. The polls don't lie - New Vegas is objectively more fun game despite 56 people getting bored of it. Right? Let's hope Bethesda, when making the next Fallout, keeps that in mind, shall we.
:)

Uh huh, the fact I have seen quite a bit of bethesda bashing and "omg fallout 3 svcks, NV is awesome" despite them being the same, I am going to assume there are quite a few NMA people here.

They play similarly but Fallout: New Vegas isn't illogical or just bastardising what came from previous games whereas F3 brings in everything it can from the other games, regardless of reason, and just spews inconsistancies and plot holes wherever it goes; you don't have to be a NMA-type person to understand that F3 did a lot of stupid things which from here-on-out will plauge the series because they are impossible to uncanonise, the Enclave will always be the those stupid bastards who couldn't even stop a robot dispite having a fleet of Vertibirds packing everything up to mini nukes and having the ability to just come from behind it.

1. Sorry if I mistaken you for another user but didn't you bring up awards in another thread?
3. It felt very very cramped up and filled with unnecessary dungeons, it felt like an amusemant park where I couldn't go 20 feet without encountering a new ride. And that's not a plus in my book, I like a world to feel realistic, NV accomplished that at least better than FO3 did.
4. That's the case in point isn't it? Are you into dungeon crawling or solving quests and defining your character? Hint: Fallout was never designed to be a dungeon crawler.
5. And what did they do that was oh so horrible?

1. There have been several polls, Fallout 1 always comes on top.

2. Sure.

3. Its not all desert. You have towns, airports, New Vegas, ruins, all in all, its more diverse than Fallout 3.

4. Exploration is not fun to many people. The thing is, its only cool once. Once you explore a place once, its a chore to go back again in the next playthrough. All in all, every single quest in New Vegas was well written and complex.

5. Oh, they should make more games. They have great writing, which Bethesda sorely lacks, they have great ideas, and a fairly large team. Many people enjoyed Fallout NV, and it was a commercial success.

I agree fallout 3 story wise was stupid, but I see praise for NV being a better gameplay when its pretty much the same, jsut ronsights, ammo and HC mode.
I haveseen people say they wanted a more "inteligent" game, and got that in NV, but it isnt more inteligent, its just people fappping over NV because its Obsidian, if people said its a better story/writing thats fine I agree, but when one game is the antichrist and the other is pretty much Jesus when they are both the same gameplay wise, its pretty [censored] stupid/pathetic and obviously [censored].

Hmm... gameplay isn't really anything I fuss over (if I want both story and gameplay then I'll play Fallout 2) lore and story are all I care about and as you can undoubtly tell I rather like the Enclave, therefore, F3 is really not my cup of tea, regardless if it was what first introduced me to Fallout.

I was pro enclave in 3, it dosent bother me, you have to kill them in 2 aswell.

i don't hate new vegas, it just doesn't have a lot of replay value, obsidian ignored what most people want in a fallout game, which in a simple sentance is, lots of things to do and an interesting environment, it was a fun game for a month or two, but obsidian did ignore several important elements, exploration, interesting game environment, random encounters/events, the poll says almost 60% are finding the game boring, so obviously obsidian ignored what most people want in a fallout game. most people don't want less to do, like most people really want an empty desert with no random encounters, hardly anything worth exploring other than a few shacks and tents, this isn't gonna happen again, new vegas is prob gonna be the last boring fallout game. the rest of em will be a lot better.

But for slightly less stupid reasons, it's not lack they aparently forgot that they had the US Army in Fallout 2 and Fallout 2 doesn't strong you along with the idea that you can help them before finally slapping you in the face with a post-ending DLC.

Strength requirements are back, skills have more of an importance, pacifist playthrough is possible, traits are back, reputation system is back and even expanded upon, weapon mods are back, SPECIAL itself has gotten a little more of an upgrade, companions are easier to manage, iron sights improve the FPP aspect of it, perks are more valuable, DT system is back and improves upon a DR only system.

While the core gameplay is the same in that when I kill someone I can loot their items or that when I press Y I jump or that when in dialogue I get a close up portrait with the options stated below it has a lot of other qualities that improves on it.
So yes, it is similar to FO3's gameplay, but it's upgraded and more in touch with the originals.
As to FO3's that was incredibly dumbed down in every corner.


There are lots of things to do and it has a very interesting environment. :shrug:

1. i agree
2. ok
3. LOL thats not the point. oooo theres a town the most i have seen in 100 miles. Its far from diverse.
4.Yah but FNV is boring with just walking around in a desert expecting nothing than a bloat fly and a random shack.
5. Please your gonna make me laugh even harder. Most of there games arnt even that great. More than half received mixed reviews. Not to mention there last game was crap.

3. Did you actually laugh out loud when you wrote that? Anyway, yes, there are fewer things in NV's gameworld than FO3's, but the difference is that NV has a more realistic gameworld as to FO3 that felt cramped up all the time. NV is diverse, if it's as or more diverse than FO3 is debatable I guess but it is diverse.
4. If you walked around in a desert what would you expect to find?
5. Blame the publishers that rushed them, not Obsidian that had to work with their ridiculous deadlines.

And I stopped reading there. You mmust have a different game in the case.


Those changes dont make it from "omg kill it with fire" to "its so awesome", it imprived on alot I admit, but you cant hate fallout 3 then love NV when NV is still pretty much the same game, sorry but for that attitude it would have to be major like from F1 to F3, but 3 to NV the reaction isnt justified imo.

Yet you go into great lengths in making sure you appear as hating it. I haven't seen you post anything positive about it in a long time, just the same block of text about how boring and empty the game is. At least be honest, will ya.

Obsidian made the damn game so they shouldve chose a different place...

Same with you. You make comments about F3 and you like it...just because you talk about something that you hate doesnt mean you cant like it...

the desert environment is really boring and to most people there isn't a lot to do, the environment itself is bad, no good hiding places, no large buildings or towns to fight in and sneak around in, i think some peoples idea of a lot to is "reading dialogue" to me that doesn't count as lots to do, if i wanted to read a book i would of bought a book, not a video game, video games are interactive, at least most of em are, but as far as exploring buildings or towns, fighting enemies, stalking enemies, sneaking around, hiding, etc there isn't much of that in new vegas, the city area was ok i guess, it could of used a little more danger around it though, so at least you had to hide or fight or sneak around, just running around most of the map with nothing random happening or anything interesting to do isn't very fun. :spotted owl:

I don't hate FO3's gameplay, just think it's more action oriented than RPG.
What I hate about FO3 is the entire design for a Fallout game.
And listen, I don't consider NV to be all that great, I think it's 15% of what a true Fallout game should be like.
It's 15% more than FO3 (for countless of reasons) so therefor I think it's above FO3.
FO3 and NV is not the same game though, just cause they share the same graphics, engine and core design does not make them the same as shown in the dungeon crawler vs coherent gameworld debates.
I would expand on this post but I'm hungry as hell right now, raincheck.


No, they shouldn't, they wanted Vegas and they brought an as realistic gameworld as they could manage with the awful sandbox map.
They are not wrong because it failed to live up to certain people's dungeon crawler cravings.

How does that make sense in west's case? :unsure2:

At least UnDeCafIndeed doesn't seem like that type of guy who keeps looking for [insert Falout game] bashing threads only to stir it up even more.



I would have worded it a bit differnetly, but I agree. Overall.

I don't see the problem here. Fallout 3 had plenty of people complaining about it and plenty of people saying they were bored of it. How is New Vegas different?

It's funny because what's happening here is exactly what happened to the fans of the originals. It's different so it svcks.

i agree ace, they could of made the desert a lot more interesting, the one cool town where you actually fight something "camp searchlight" you can't stay long cause the radiation lol, its like they purposely made the game so you had as little to do as possible, its ridiculous, with an area that big, it could of had all sorts of enemies, random encounters, patrolling factions, ghost towns, more building complexes, look at camp searchlight airport? talk about underachieving, it could of been a lot better, look at nipton, that was a cool town, but there is nothing happening there once ceasers legion leaves, so i think obsidian did all this on purpose, they were far to wrapped in trying to make the game "believable" so it all "made sense" well thats boring and i have it said it before and i'll say it again, imagination and creativity are more important than "realism" and "plausibility"....artistic license, creativity and imagination took a backseat in the game unfortunately.

Yah they wanted New vegas and got boring....desert...nothing to do...nothing to see. The most interesting thing in the game is the cover of the box.

I've never claimed to like Fallout 3. I've criticised it since day one (though not obsessively seeking out possibilities to), but I've also given credit where I have though credit's been due.