Excellent points.

I should probably add if you happen to have the PC version and want to do a full all-quest playthrough, it might be a good idea to just plan to be using the console and not try for acheivements.

Really? Is it that great? I've been thinking about picking it up used.



This

Not really, Morrowind was much much better.

Gotta agree with that sentiment.

There is a fair bit of the F:NV map that is not currently accessible.

This is a bit of an aside to my original post, but one person mentioned how NPCs would cheat you - I LOVE that type of thing. I want betrayals, backstabs, locked in to a derelict ruin with deathclaws whether I'm prepared or not, lies, cheaters - it makes the game feel much more real world where you can't take everything at face value and increases the tension of every decision. I would love to have someone even pass themselves off as a member of a faction and get you to do something and then turn out to be from another faction.... the cool part would be if there were subtle (subtle!) clues that would alert you to the fact that not all was as it seems.....

I overall prefer FO:NV to FO3, especially b/c of the number of quests, dialogue and fleshed out places but I do occasionally miss seeing a complex on the horizon and, when I arrive at it, it is a huge exploration just to get through it (Anchorage War Memorial felt that way to me).... I don't miss the feeling of seeing some incredibly cool location only to realize the only thing to do was loot and shoot.

Thanks for the replies.

I guess it depends on what aspect of the story you're talking about. I generally don't evaluate a game's writing by looking at the general outline of it (i.e., the main bullet points that convey a summary of the story) as much as the little details that tie everything together. The overall story wasn't anything special, but I wouldn't say it was bad. Everything from the main characters to the NPCs to the locations/towns to the quest lines were, IMO, woefully lacking of the types of details that pull me into a story.

Even if the over-arching outline of a story is completely unimaginative or cliche the details can make up for it. I didn't feel like the story was painting me a picture so much as giving me a laundry list of chores to check off...some of which were cool, while many, many others were (IMO) pretty un-fun and repetitive. If I ever see another Oblivion gate I'm going to throw my PC out the window. Add that on top of not getting any feedback for my actions (example: ok, so I'm the head of the X Guild...now what?) I felt like the people, places, factions, etc. were pretty two-dimensional. Some of the same issues I had with FO3's story and writing, to be honest. There's a lot of pretense without follow-through.

This was a totally unexpected but brilliant piece of game play in VTM:Redemption, I was all "What? [censored]! Of course! Ahhhh, so obvious". lol, An old but great game, if you like your vampires served with cheese

Companions in NV are a double-edged sword I think; whilst the companions themselves are generally well-written with interesting back-stories and quests, the engine is still awful at coping with them. It's always "you+others" rather than a genuine group moving as one. I feel obliged to pick up companions as they're a likeable bunch and the extra carry weight is massively helpful, but then find myself utterly resenting them as I have to nanny and shepard them about the wastes, ensuring they're not getting stuck on the scenery or wasting precious ammo killing docile blowflies (yes I'm looking at you Arcade, put the Multiplas away and use your pistol you ninny). The companion wheel does little to help matters either.

Also, whilst it's true they're a massive improvement over those in 3, companions in Vegas still fall well short of the kind of group dynamics you get in Bioware's stuff, where companions will actually interact and converse with one another and engage regularly with the player thorughout the story, offering advice, praising or chastising you when important decisons are made. In Vegas, none of my companions have a great deal to say to or about me unless it relates to their specific quest. I can rarely ask their opinon on what course of action I should be taking, or hear them react to major events beyond a token line of dialogue.

(Personally, I wouldn't mind if they ditched companions altogether for Fallout 4, I prefer the feeling of one man against the environment -- being a Lone Wanderer -- anyway, and expecting actual group dynamics and control on top of the open-world smorgasboard is clearly absurdly over-ambitious.)

Well most of what your saying all has to do with how Gamebryo handles NPCs. They just need to ditch that engine for future games.

I can see that for pathfinding etc, the nuts-and-bolts stuff, but not so much the 'companions interacting with you/each other' stuff, not sure what that's got to do with the rickety engine.

They are restricted to what the engine can do with NPC AI. If gamebryo is crappy at handling behavior then the companions will be crappy at handling there AI packages.

Definitely not.

All I'm asking for is more dialogue, more scripted conversations, of the kind that already exist in this and other Gamebryo games. I really don't think the engine is the issue here. Time constraints, on the other hand...

Proof? The devs have stated otherwise and you've used the word "definitely," so I'd say the burden of proof lies on you. :shrug: Don't say, "look at the Pipboy map," because the scale isn't the same.

i love NV and FO3, but each has some major seperation that nearly make them equal.
in FO3, when i left the vault, i ran up to the ledge and just saw the huge vast wasteland, just there, i could look for my father, or i could go look around for stuff to help me, on my own. sure, it had bad voice acting, but it was enjoyable being able to fight raiders in the metro, or ghouls. it felt like i had alot of ways of doing quests, and that i could actually do them as i wanted (though not entirely the case). i could honestly go train if i didnt feel prepared.

In NV, it has a much nicer voice acting, but it really doesnt feel "open" as FO3 did, when i left michels house for the first time, i was more interested in looking at the iron sights than looking around at the scenery. the quests were capable of having many endings, which made you look at every corner. however, this lead to a problem, when you went on a second or third playthrough, i was easily bored, maybe only played a half hour to 2 hours, vs my first playthrough of almost 4-5 hour binges. the fighting gameplay was very nice. NV doesnt really have the lust to go out and explore vs FO3, mostly due to the fact that as soon as you wiped out a group of enemies, they usually dont respawn, making your usual running to go train or just venturing for fun, alot less fun, with alot less experience yeilded. usually when im traversing the wastes, its because im doing a quest to go somewhere, not just for the fun.

the games are about equal in my mind, i still play NV for the aesthetic iron sights though honestly, it doesnt do much, but it adds a serious 'feel' to the combat.

Oh, well in that case I agree with you. I think the story's good, but yeah the characters and writing don't exactly do much to pull you in. It's the same deal with becoming the head of a Guild I guess, with the lack of feedback for actions, but I suppose TES aren't so much about consequences and decision-making.
The NPCs have always been a plague on the Gamebryo (that what it's called?) Engine.