The strip is pathetic : Fallout: New Vegas

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:02 pm

Its more like "New Laughlin".

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:19 pm

Interesting, but there is a business reason why;

Bethesda had to pay Nothing in royalties to anyone for using the national land marks in the game, the same holds true for all the town and city names. Notice however you will not find any Company names from today - precisely for that reason.

Do you have ANY idea how much the Real Las Vegas casino's would charge in royalties to have their names in the game?

If that wasn't enough to stop them, I frankly don't think the Casino's would want themselves portrayed in this game - as in most cases the portrayal of the casino owners is frankly unflattering in the extreme. Can you imagine the reaction from Modern day casino's to the storyline behind the owners of the Tops? Gamorah? Ultra-Lux? Every one of the casino's in New Vegas is dark, does extremely evil things and in some cases, outragous things. I somehow doubt that the modern day casino's would want themselves portrayed like that, and even is so, would have charged ALOT of money for using their names.

Bethesda/Obsidian did the only rational thing to do - make up the casinos.

Oh, I agree 100%. they would have charged to use their names. But, when I saw that the next installment in the Fallout series was called Fallout: New Vegas that takes place in and around a post apocalyptic Las Vegas strip, that is what I figured they did. But that is not what we got.

I'm just suggesting that it was a disappointment and a bit misleading. Instead of Fallout: New Vegas how about....Fallout4??? "The next installment of the critically acclaimed Fallout series follows the story of a wasteland messanger through the Mojaive Wastelands and into The Strip. A City of corruption and intrigue loosely based on modern day Las Vegas....blah, blah, blah...
That would have been a better representation.

Like I said. Still loving the game but i still don't feel like I've played a fallout game that takes place in Las Vegas as I was led to believe FNV was supposed to be.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:30 pm

in all honesty beth/obsid shouldn't really be using an engine that can't support more than 4 casino's and there still divided.And i don't believe the engine is as bad as made out they could of added another segment of 2 more casino's.Huh and the mojave is 2/3 of the size of the capital wasteland with a pathetic strip as it's focal point .

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:19 pm

after 80 hrs in when i finally decided i couldnt do anymore outside the strip i made a "just in case my game screws up because i went into the strip" save on my memory card i went in te gate..i can honestly say i was completely underwhelmed..i though the way it was advertised and hyped it was supposed to be awesome and filled to the brim with things to see and do..theres what like 8 places to go into? and it pretty much looks as run down as the rest of the world..im not too impressed to say the least..

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:30 pm

Oh, I agree 100%. they would have charged to use their names. But, when I saw that the next installment in the Fallout series was called Fallout: New Vegas that takes place in and around a post apocalyptic Las Vegas strip, that is what I figured they did. But that is not what we got.

Yeah I think your expectations were too high for a $60 game frankly.

I see no reason why they had to use real Las Vegas brand names to make a game "loosely based" on Las Vegas. Fallout4 would not do justice to the fact that they actually made a credible Giant-sized city in the game that has TONS of Las Vegas feel to it - including some of the iconic names (Newman for example).

I don't think it would have made sense to call it anything but what they did.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:26 am

i understand why they are fictional the hotels but my beef is it's just too small and not enough to do

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:50 am

It would look a lot better without the dividers.

Agreed.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:08 pm

Maybe they'll expand it with an expensive DLC?

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:02 pm

Maybe they'll expand it with an expensive DLC?

as funny as that is at this point i honestly wouldnt be surprised..

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:16 pm

.Huh and the mojave is 2/3 of the size of the capital wasteland with a pathetic strip as it's focal point .

actually it has been proven that the new vegas map is slightly larger then the fallout 3 map.

also, yeah the strip was a bit of a dissapointment, but it still blows all of the F3 settlements out of the water.

but the size and the lack of people can be blamed on the engine.

my biggest gripe is that each casino only had one (in gomorahs case 2) quests associated with them.

they needed at least 5-7 quests per casino in my opinion

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:14 pm

wrong mojave wasteland is 2/3 the size of accessible land mass than capital wasteland have u seen the left hand side of the map it's a giant unassailable mountain.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:40 pm

as funny as that is at this point i honestly wouldnt be surprised..

From page 3, here is how it looks without the walls: http://www.newvegasnexus.com/imageshare/images/899612-1290055972.jpg

There is a performance reason of some kind as to why the broke it up, as this could Not have been the desired outcome (especially when the early trailers showed the strip open, so that was clearly the design intent). Given that, I highly doubt a DLC will open it up - as that would require an engine change of some kind (something that they could not overcome during the dev. of the main game).

It really does look different when opened up!

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:18 am

So by breaking up the Strip into three loading screens we assume that this frees up Obsidian to place more content into each loading zone. What we get instead is the worst of both worlds: A sparsely populated strip with little activity that is also divided into three loading screens. Where's the benefit to this? Because I can certainly see the downside!

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:11 am

wrong mojave wasteland is 2/3 the size of accessible land mass than capital wasteland have u seen the left hand side of the map it's a giant unassailable mountain.

No it's not.

You just did'nt try hard enough.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:22 am

wrong mojave wasteland is 2/3 the size of accessible land mass than capital wasteland have u seen the left hand side of the map it's a giant unassailable mountain.

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.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:17 am

So the Mojave Wasteland has a higher elevation, but don't forget about the invisible walls placed all around various parts of the map....especially around hills and cliffsides. I can't shake the feeling that it is smaller than the D.C. Wasteland.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:37 am

So the Mojave Wasteland has a higher elevation, but don't forget about the invisible walls placed all around various parts the map....especially around hills and cliffsides.

That does'nt make the map smaller.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:49 am

^^Technically no. But if we're going to talk about accessible areas, then there's debate to be had. Let's not derail the thread however.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:34 pm

^^Technically no. But if we're going to talk about accessible areas, then there's debate to be had. Let's not derail the thread however.

There are a lot of cliffs and unclimbable rocks in Fallout 3 too.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:36 am

Whats the point in having a map as big as DC map if 40% of the map is not even accessible ?

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:21 am

Its already derailed seeing we arn't talking about the Strip, And on a side note, There are more "Accessible" areas than "Inaccessable" areas.

On topic: The strip is'nt pathetic, I mean you can't expect everyone to be able to get in.

Not everyone has caps.. Unless your a Fallout Protogonist.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:10 pm

So by breaking up the Strip into three loading screens we assume that this frees up Obsidian to place more content into each loading zone. What we get instead is the worst of both worlds: A sparely populated strip with little activity that is also divided into three loading screens. Where's the benefit to this? Because I can certainly see the downside!

This isn't the case, the reverse is true. I would GECKulate that Obsidian added the walls because the game engine was incapable of placing enough NPCs within the open-strip area. I say that because we know there is a limit to the number of NPCs that can go into battle at any time or be in a cell viably, but there could have been other more serious limitations. We may never know for sure, but it was a limitation that forced them to put the walls in. Taking them out would mean they can load Less content, not more.

I don't think Obsidian intended the strip to be this way, the open-version is obviously where their design choices lay. I think the age and limitations of the Gamebroyo engine used in F:NV forced the change, and I would also GECKulate that JES and the others were not likely very happy about it either. No one benefits, the game engine is what it is, and we got the game we got. Still a TREMENDOUS value at $65 bucks any day of the week.

Miax

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:09 pm

This isn't the case, the reverse is true. I would GECKulate that Obsidian added the walls because the game engine was incapable of placing enough NPCs within the open-strip area. I say that because we know there is a limit to the number of NPCs that can go into battle at any time or be in a cell viably, but there could have been other more serious limitations. We may never know for sure, but it was a limitation that forced them to put the walls in. Taking them out would mean they can load Less content, not more.

I don't know if my earlier post was unclear but that's what I meant. Without the walls the game loads less content so can't we assume that the game is able to handle more content in smaller areas with multiple loading screens? I hardly see anything active with what we're given, minus any mods. And should we always have to rely on mods to fix these issues?

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:40 am

You can turn off clipping and walk through the dividing walls without affecting the other side (I think). The Strip IS one big cell, not separate zones - so the walls aren't there for performance reasons. I'm not really sure what they're for without looking in the GECK - but I want to finish my first play through before I start modding!

Edit: After further investigation, the walls are for unnamed NPCs (drunk NCR etc), who spawn when you go through the doors. I'm not sure what the NPC limit is, but in Fallout 3's Washington Mall you had a whole bunch of super mutants, robots and Talon Company fighting up one end, more super mutants and Brotherhood of Steel in the middle and then several Mercs (or slaves) around the Lincoln Memorial at the other end. So I still don't know why The Strip dividers are needed - there aren't any big crowds.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:08 pm

on mine there is a load screen between section but it just takes a second to load the area...i dont know if thats because the areas are small or what though..