this is my opinion and i might be wrong so don' troll me. i have 2 reasons on why FO3 is bigger than NV
1st i think people feel that NV is smaller id bcuz they've probably played a lot of FO3 and gottin very used to the map size so people expected for NV to be bigger
2nd NV lacks the amount of buildings FO3 had and most importantly the buildings in NV have little to no loot or enemies inside them

am not sure about the so called "wasted space" and am not sure why they put it in the map if u couldn't travel in it yet, and unfortuantly if we can explore that area were gonna have to pay for the space thats already in the map :sadvaultboy:

Agreed i notice that myself kinda poor not to walk around the whole map its mountains and etc to block each side -.-*

It's bigger in the sense of exploration.
I don't care much for it.
I'd rather have the map node system back instead of having a sandbox map.
But yeah it is annoying since it's so alike FO3 that it's exploration aspect falls short.

I do not like this about the game.

Actually, the map is bigger.

Josh Sawyer counted up all of the tiles (excluding the unused space) and the map is a little bit bigger than FO3.

What exactly is this ? Im not familiar. Like FO1/2 maps?

Maybe FO3 felt bigger cause, you know, 1/3 of the map wasn't blank. But it is just a theory. :shifty:

Yup.
A big map where you travel to different nodes and enter the area at.
Not sandbox as in "go wherever there isn't an invisible wall".

I don't like the whole sandbox thing.

I like the node system a lot more.

The mountians were added as realism, instead of invisibarriers (Which ironically still exist on the map) there are mountians. I prefer F3s invisiwalls to be honest :shrug:

I agree completely. The random encounters made traveling on the roads a new experience each time you traveled them.Also the DC area including the metro tunnels made were so large and in depth that they made up for the smaller map size. They packed a lot more action into the area the used. Now Black Isle fan boys will come and argue that they sacrificed buildings filled with enemies for more in depth locales or that it is greater in its scope of exploration, but ive been forced onto a road or directed patch much more often than in FO3.

I'm no Black Isle really devoted fan and I like FNV better. I started with FO3.

I prefer stories with tons of depth rather than just a Black and White linear story thank you.

edit: The censor took out fan boy and changed it to "really devoted fan!!"

Indeed, there only so much copy paste spawn point grinding you can do.

Thats not necessary

about the thread: yes it is, but still, i prefer the node system than a sanbox

Interesting they changed your wording but not my post which initially brought up the term lol. But i guess my opinion comes from the fact that the MQ of FO3 was such a small portion of the game for me, in fact the only character I did it on was my character that was practically Wasteland Jesus. I liked having a black and white story in that regard because it is hard to be the hero when you question your own motives. In New Vegas sure there is much more diversity in the MQ but i tend to avoid them anyway and its making playing the game almost difficult. At least it supports multiple run throughs better :shrug:

In fact NV MQ isnt even as great as everyone is saying it is. NCR is still supposed to be the good guys, Caesars Legion are the bad guys. Only Mr. House and Yes Man have any gray area because they give you an option of which factions you want to ignore and which you want to support.

Nope, sorry. The numbers are in, the grids are counted, and New Vegas is bigger.

/thread

I agree that New Vegas provides a superior experience in the relatively small percentage of the time I spend in games like this following the story line. However, I'm into the modding aspect of the game and for me the game isn't a mere stage for the game's canned story, it's a playground for me to indulge in whatever strikes my fancy at the moment. Right now while I wait for the patch, for example, I'm busy building up my village with Real Time Settler. For me, Fallout 3 presented a superior setting in many ways because of the sheer variety of places to explore and things to do when you didn't have somebody else's narrative leading you around by the nose.

I have a hard time comparing the two games though, because I've literally forgotten what vanilla FO3 was like. I tend to compare New Vegas to MY Fallout 3, which was radically different from what came in the box. It's not really a fair comparison.

Nope, sorry. You can count numbers and grids all you like but, in terms of complexity and sheer "wow" factor, New Vegas is lackluster.
\thread

I'm not at ALL saying that either game is better than the other, so forget that right off.
However, as I've been replaying FO3 over the last couple of weeks, I can honestly say (in MY opinion) that if Beth had marked [i]every single[/] location they way Obsidian did in NV, then this "debate" wouldn't be taking place.

Meh, I'm not quite neurotic enough to pace off the map grid-by-grid and I really don't care all that much about which game is "bigger" but I can very truly say (again, just MY opinion) FO3 is much more immersive when it comes to dungeon diving and exploring. NV just doesn't even compete.

I'm not bashing NV.
I absolutely love the game. Between iron sights, the companion wheel, gun mods and about a dozen other things I can name, NV is an improvement over FO3. In my opinion, that's just to be expected. Still, I have to give the devil his due and admit that, in terms of locations and exploration, NV falls far short of FO3. To my mind, that's just a fact.

I think that Obsidian succeeded in what they were tasked: creating not a sequel but a parallel. NV may exist slightly after FO3 but the only relation (which, to my understanding, is intended) is the Fallout world in general. As natural is it is for us to want to compare one game against the other, it's really unfair.

Meh, just my half-cap.
:shrug:

I'm not sure. FO:3 had a lot more underground multi-story buildings which added quite a lot of space. FO:NV has a bit larger map but way less explorable buildings. Doesn't really matter to me since both have eaten up hours and hours of my life. I mean I could be doing something useful like knitting sweaters or making quilts but nooooo...I still have places to go and people to see in my game worlds.

Perfectly fair, but the thread's not about "wow factor," it's clearly stated in both title and OP that it's about which is bigger. New Vegas has the larger map, unarguable fact.



Wasn't going there- just dealing with the apparent topic of the thread before haring off into "how's it feel" territory.



Like many swords, that one cuts both ways- there are places in New Vegas that aren't marked on the map as well. :shrug: So if they had marked off every single location, the way you claim...

See how that works?



And just my opinion, the exact opposite is true. For me, "something noteworthy" being in every single location is an instant immersion-destroyer, and constantly reminds me I'm in a "scavenger hunt loot game." Part of exploring, and what makes it exploring (Again, opinion here folks) is that you're trying to see where you will and won't find anything significant. If everyplace counts as "where you will," that's a kid's Easter Egg hunt to me.

the Fallout 3 Map was bigger because of its intricate sewer layout. I spend countless hours navigating those sewers. also the capital city you couldnt just walk from one spot to the next, you have to go through its sewers to get anywhere which is what made it fun and challenging. plus Fallout 3 hap more large cities that new vegas. all new vegas had was The Strip, The Fort and a bunch of smaller settlements. and to be honest, I think Megaton was a much better city than The Strip, and Rivet City was the best. all in all, Fallout 3 is much bigger than New Vegas

You hit it spot on. FO3 was deceptively bigger because of all the underground portions of subway that it had. It also had more dungeons (vaults) and hidden areas that were explorable.

I think NV does have a bigger world map but its not leaps and bounds bigger than what FO3 was.

Bigger... with great inaccessible swaths.

That's it, and after a while I dreaded going into those tunnels. Not scary from an enemy sense, I just didn't like jumping into drain pipes all the time. In fact on one of my runs I almost avoided the subway altogether. Except that you HAVE to use it to get to some parts of the game, like the Heathman hotel. To me, DC really directed your path quite a bit. NV has been pretty great, the only time I really ran into the invisiwall was when I was trying to take a massive shortcut. The designs alright by me..

Or it felt bigger because it had a vast sewer/subway system, which isn't a theory.

To be fair, DC was full of invisible walls on rubble piles that could easily be jumped. DC was a series of interconnected cells the would completely load into ram. One positive about this was there wasn't much stuttering while the world was loading unless roaming the open wastes. NV is more like Oblivion in the way it loads cells so even though you should be able to go beyond the mountain, that cell doesn't load unless you swing around it first

Talking about Black Isle

i think that Fallout 1 was developed only by Interplay, not by Black Isle