I very much liked how one could walk into some abandoned place in FO:3 and find a sort of story there. A computer with an email that told a story or skeletons laying in a way that told a bit of story of what they were doing when the bombs his. A wife and husband skeleton spooning gave the feeling they died in one another's arms. A note or a collection or toys in the child's room. Some odd little piece of evidence of life before the war. It amused me. In fact there was one military outpost in FO:3 that was like a swat unit just after the war and reading the nurses note of the radiation sickness of her patients she was treating, the other nurses and doctors also dying one by one of radiation sickness and her donning a scarf or hat to hide her own sickness (hair falling out) from her patients that almost brought me to tears. It was those sorts of touches that I miss in NV.

Beyond that and a couple of other things, I find NV a better game in many ways. I find the combat better balanced. I find the stories better written and and I find more humor scattered about. I don't think I can pick one over the other as far as "better". They are both really, really good games. But I can't help now thinking, one would be better with this or that from the other. Thus, I tend to love and enjoy each one on it's own merits. I'm happy we have them both and look forward to the next.

There is nothing wrong with noticing what one likes better in one over the other nor expressing such. It takes nothing away from either great game. And yes, they are both great games.

I know what you mean. Ive been trying to find all the remaining locations on the map, but really most of them are absolutely empty. If you want a fun time go check out the Mojave drive in! Its got pre-blown up cars and a few empty garbage cans!

I miss the +SP books, there was always one in every location and this made them all worthwhile. Granted a lot of locations should be of the barren, lots of skeletons-look but going all the way to the edge of FO to get a SP book from a small manhole that has a visually narrative story or all the way through the maze of DC metro-system to go through the ruins of some building that has been booby-trapped really honed the essence of FO for me. I haven't explored that much in NV so I can't comment, but so far a lot of the places have been a bit empty - in the narrative, meaningful sense.

Reno

There are lots of pointless locations, but you don't know they are pointless until you scrounge around. Most will have something, but you can't realistically expect there to be a hidden unique weapon or armor at every spot you visit.

I can say that I have not played New Vegas fully... The last session ended with the clearing the path of ants for the caravan at the NCR outpost... But I've had FO3 since 2008. Call me poisoned by the first two games, but so far I like NV better. I love Fallout 3's art and landscaping, but the rest of it was not really my cup of tea and I quit playing after freeing James from the simulation.

I very much liked how one could walk into some abandoned place in FO:3 and find a sort of story there. A computer with an email that told a story or skeletons laying in a way that told a bit of story of what they were doing when the bombs his. A wife and husband skeleton spooning gave the feeling they died in one another's arms. A note or a collection or toys in the child's room. Some odd little piece of evidence of life before the war. It amused me. In fact there was one military outpost in FO:3 that was like a swat unit just after the war and reading the nurses note of the radiation sickness of her patients she was treating, the other nurses and doctors also dying one by one of radiation sickness and her donning a scarf or hat to hide her own sickness (hair falling out) from her patients that almost brought me to tears. It was those sorts of touches that I miss in NV.

Beyond that and a couple of other things, I find NV a better game in many ways. I find the combat better balanced. I find the stories better written and and I find more humor scattered about. I don't think I can pick one over the other as far as "better". They are both really, really good games. But I can't help now thinking, one would be better with this or that from the other. Thus, I tend to love and enjoy each one on it's own merits. I'm happy we have them both and look forward to the next.

There is nothing wrong with noticing what one likes better in one over the other nor expressing such. It takes nothing away from either great game. And yes, they are both great games.

The correlation here, Gizmo, is simple and direct. A movie that is only the title and no content is very much akin to a map marker signifying nothing.

We have entirely different views on FO3, but we've all seen it here time and time again ... one person says FO3 was empty and boring and someone says the exact opposite. We're not going to get anywhere on this one.

No, they don't think otherwise, being a simulator is a tongue-in-cheek expression. If it were a simulator, it would be our character sitting huddled in a miserable dirty pit, scraping at the ground and probably eventually dying from malnutrition. I stated the fact that it was not a simulator to highlight the fact that sometimes certain liberties are taken to make sure the game is enjoyable, like for instance, making sure you don't dump the player into a wasteland completely devoid of anything because that might be "realistic". Sometimes, you need to add super mutants and mini nukes to make a game fun, and sometimes you need to make sure that some metal boxes are stocked with stuff and that we gain experience points for murdering Deathclaws in extremely gory ways.

I'm sorry if after you're done shooting giant green mutants with make believe weapons you find a box with stuff still in it to be absurd. Seriously, with all the offbeat, totally weird and outlandish humor and happenings in Fallout 1,2 and 3 you find a medkit with medicine in it just plain unthinkable?

It's really quite simple if you read what the complaint is: There are many "points of interest" that are only really points without the interest. I understand if you find an abandoned tin shack completely engaging, or poignant, or even if you just nod approvingly to yourself that yup, there would definitely be abandoned shacks in the wastes and appreciate that the devs have catered to the abandoned shack with no story and content crowd ...

but keep in mind that it's not wrong to want to be entertained or to expect that when a game tells you "Hey! hey! map marker, check it out!" that there might be something there that is more than simply calling attention to a dead brahmin ... especially, when the previous game, that used all the same visual feedback, engine and design elements did it that way.

It takes some getting used to. If people are slow to come around, give it time and understand that not everyone is looking for the same thing in the game. I would like to, however, make it known on the forums for future iterations of Fallout that many folks found the interesting points of interest interesting and that some of us are interested in interesting them in working on that.

NV also has terrible pacing in how the mojave is set out, in F3 there was always something interesting on the horizon

Nobody is asking for special weapons or unique items on every location, what we are asking for is a unique and varied experience to better enjoy the game. You spend several minutes walking to a location or seversal seconds sitting bored watching a loading screen then you find absolutely nothing in the location and either go through another loading screen or how to find something less boring by spending several more minutes walking on. In F3 each location didn't need to have some special weapon in it, the devs understood that once you get the weapon that location will never be visited again. Instead they added notes, holotapes, terminals, positioned skeletons or added specific enemies so you could piece together the small story of that location and would continue to think about it as you moved on.

In NV the locations are either map markers with nothing in them and only serve as a waypoint for more fast travel; are occupied by generic npcs who just have to tell you what patrolling the mojave is like every three seconds; have unique loot/enemies which once looted become meaningless or the locations are stealthily part of a quest line and interacting with them will just shorten the game later. The times when something is interesting for its own sake are incredibly rare and shortlived. After four playthroughs I still haven't seen anything on the level of the Dunwich building in F3.

NV also has terrible pacing in how the mojave is set out, in F3 there was always something interesting on the horizon to take a quick sidetrip to but in NV all you see is desert and cliffs for extended periods of time. Those times when you try to convince yourself something interesting must be there usually end in disappointment such as how South of Nipton has a huge expanse of map yet there is literally nothing there and being on the edge of the map, no reason to ever go back. These blank spots are all over the map with it being much smaller than it appears on the pipboy thanks to most of the sides being glorified borders, most of the deserts being blank and most of the canyons being filled with invisible walls.

Even from the start Obsidian drop cliffs to the west, impossibly difficult enemies for a starting player to the north, high level enemies followed by cliffs and invisible walls to the right and the actual path they want you to take south. In F3 the moment you left the vault you could go any direction you pleased and while some areas where too difficult for a starting character they could always go around the threat. NV always puts walls to the sides of what they want you to fight so you have to be able to engage the threat or turn back. This leads to the whole map being one big horseshoe you must follow around and after the third playthrough going through primm, nipton, novac, freeside and New Vegas in that order gets really old.

There isn't any individual reason for NV to feel so much more shallow in exploration but altogether each design choice compounded until NV felt much more like a legend of zelda game in its exploration philosophy than a true sandbox. After I finished my NV playthroughs I put F3 back in and took a refreshing trip straight to Paradise Falls with a side trip to Big Town and it felt good not having Obsidian there waving a turn back sign and a cazador at me.

I disagree :shrug:
Lets agree to disagree. So far I love the map, so far I've liked to locations. Did you see the go-cart track near Nipton? What did you think of it. My only peeve there was that the ant hive entrance was faked.. Not upset that I could not enter the hive, just that the collision geometry made my Incinerator shots ignite my PC instead of travel down into the hole as (to all appearance) it should have.

Ohh, I didn't see that yet. Nice. There is an ant hill somewhere else that you can go in though!

Is that ant hole in the side of the Ivampah dry lake?

Ohh, I didn't see that yet. Nice. There is an ant hill somewhere else that you can go in though!

Yeah, there are several camps of fans, but in the end it's all good, because as I've said I love both the games and I'm plenty happy on agreeing to disagree. Sometimes, it's hard to move on from things you liked in the previous game(s) but, there are several things FONV did better than FO3 though and I'm very pleased about that.