Yeah, finding the entrance was a pain, but once you manage to get in, it's pretty awesome. That is, once you get past the tree-hugging bullshit part and get to the fun stuff.
I vaguely remember killing a tree-man. Fallout tends to delve into weird territory some times. Especially when you start to hallucinate in Point Lookout and see your mother's corpse. That really creeped me out.
Yep, except I didn't kill him, and made him spread the trees and shit. Seemed like the best idea to me. Ever played Old World Blues in NV? That was some weird shit. Or Tranquillity Lane, for that matter.
I actually didn't like that feature I always had ammo in both fallout 3 and New Vegas and it was an annoyance to get all these parts.
I liked hardcore mode in NV. You weren't playing it right if it wasn't in hardcore. I was actually disappointed when Skyrim didn't have it.
I prefer the aesthetic of FO3 but FO:NV has it beat content and gameplay wise. IMO Skyrim has FO:NV beat on the graphical side, but as a game overall Skyrim is clearly inferior. I'm hoping this will change with DLC.
Sure but after that the game just kinda falls flat. Then again, NV is simply a more developed game at this point due to its DLC. I really only have two hopes for the next Fallout. 1. More moral choices of the Megaton variety. 2. Do something interesting/innovative with VATS. It has the potential to make Fallout much more than an FPS with character leveling.
That would also be nice. In a perfect world, they'ed give us some kind of advanced options tool similar to FWE. That's a given.
Comparing both games, I'm going with FO:NV. I used to play the original games which made me enjoy FO:NV way more. FO3 is superior in terms of atmosphere and presentation. FO:NV has awesome new weapons, WAY more quests that FO3, better followers and instead portrays a post-apocalyptic society that has stared to rebuild rather than struggling to survive like in FO3.
Fallout 3 is good and everything but for me NV will always be superior, Good things about New Vegas: aiming system is greatly improved while in F3 it just zoomed in and therefore it was unknown if you would actually make the shot, unless you had a gauss rifle or some type of sniper rifle. The Factions in New Vegas are way more diverse and interesting then in F3, and theres so many groups you can associate with or join, while in Fallout 3 they MADE you join the Brotherhood of Steel(wtf isn't this an RPG? the game shouldn't FORCE you to do shit) Far more weapons and customizations(sp?), while I was minorly disappointed that they didn't have a fat man in NV, that disappointment was immedeatley washed away when I saw all the weapons that could be at my disposal, and basically had a weapon orgasm lol ;P Fallout 3 was seriously lacking in side quests, in fact I'm pretty sure the only reason F3 has so much dlc is because of the fact that there was lacking gameplay and quests(which they sacrificed for story quality and setting) and they rectified that in FNV by giving us a shitload of stuff to do, sure there way more bugs, but since they add more content thats bound to happen.
Fallout: NV because it was much more, open, in my opinion. While the setting and main plot line of Fallout 3 was great, in Fallout: NV, you actually get factions to join, your own preference, between Caesar (who was badass), the NCR, and independent Vegas as Mr. House or Yes Man. And then the side quests were quiet better in NV. It was also nice to see a setting of a rising civilization, a post-apocalyptic setting in recovery, but still vulnerable.
I prefer FO:3 over FO:NV. The Story: FO:3 fit the story. Post-apocolypse wasteland and an objective aimed at fixing it; picking up the pieces of civilization. FO:NV Did not fit. Two major, well-organized, well-equiped powers one of which had post-Industrial Revolution capacity and the other based on sweeping manpower [which doesn't make as much sense as one would think in the universe]. And they are at war with one another. No radiation to any major extent. This is a major problem. Its 'Fallout' without fallout. The idea of having preserved one city is good, but the fact that the nuclear attack basically didn't touch ANYTHING in the entire area is a massive departure from the universe. The two sides are not flushed out that well either and what is flushed out isn't all that impressive. Essentially its a pair of rapidly expanding empires, one of which is stagnating to its expansion, internal problems such as politics, and has industrial power + technology and another empire that is expanding through brutal brute force and is imposing a harsh peace on the land without the use of technology. They both rely on heavy numbers, one just uses technology, modern tactics, and ranged weaponry while the other uses waves of troops and close-combat arms. I would have much more prefered to see a battle between more polar opposites, like the NCR and the BOS or the NCR and the Enclave or the BOS and the Legion, all of which would be more interesting. Basically, FO:3 felt more 'Fallout-like' than FO:NV. Gameplay: FO:3 The only lack I really ever thought of was the lack of ironsights. And the VATS was much superior than in FO:NV. I really never understood peoples' complaints about the lack of ironsights though. I could aim even better without them in FO:3 than with them in FO:NV and I was no slacker at aiming. FO:NV More guns, which is good. Ironsights too. Weapon costomization was good, but a dissapointment to how shallow it was. I expected more. Companions were MUCH IMPROVED. I particularly liked the compaion wheel. They included so little Fatman ammo though, that it made it virtually useless. For that matter, they didn't include alot of the DLC stuff like Tesla Cannons beyond that unique one that you find in that downed Vertibird after killing like 3 hardened sentry bots and 3 hardened Mr. Gutsies [both of which only appear there]. VATS sucked. Alot. A huge way down from FO:3. It basically became a glorified sight finder for me. Oh and the **** invisible walls. The only place I ever had this problem in a Bethesda game was at the map edges, but FO:NV had them all over the place. Worse yet, if they couldn't put a invisible wall in front of you to block you from your objective, they would put some huge enemy there. The game could easily have been from Goodsprings to Primm then back up north and on to NV, but NOOO they had to go and put Deathclaws and those huge wasp things there so you would have to go ALL THE **** WAY AROUND THE MOUNTAINS to circumvent the dangers which you would have trouble dealing with even at the lvl cap. There are others, but it is late now and I don't remember them. Dude, that is how all of the Elder Scrolls games start out. Its the staple of the universe. For that matter, that is how most RPGs are. Rags to riches. Powerless to unmatched master/mistress of the universe. That was lore-related. RPG doesn't have anything to do with it. There has to be a story. All RPGs force you to do things. The claim that they don't or are not supposed to is just stupid. The Enclave would never have accepted you [the player]. If you want an RPG that has no restrictions, go play Wurm. And the factions of NV are exactly what detracts not so much from the game, but from the universe. Instead of building a civilization; picking up the pieces of the old ones and forging new ones, you are thrust into a war between two well-formed factions with a third on the sidelines that gives three options. You are a pivot point in a larger game. But that game is not supposed to exist. You are supposed to make your own game from the ruin that the last game brought. It works as a game mechanic rather handedly, but as a universe it makes it feel less than a fight to survive by a small group of individuals in a harsh reality and more like any number of other RPGs where factions are mired in organized warfare. Look at the stories for FO 1-3 and Tactics and you see that it is always a fight to survive against the reminents of the old order trying to reassert themselves by a new-world faction who are striving to rebuild civilization amidst the ruins. Even the size and technological advancement of the BOS still works within the lore, since they are so small and struggling. That is why the BOS are usually the 'hero' faction of the FO universe - because, in spite of their organization, technology, and pride [i.e. their isolationism] they are really just trying to hold on for dear life, just like everyone else and hold back the tide of chaos. In this, FO:NV is actually an enigma for the series, as it moves the focus much further away from the BOS so far as to make them a minor faction and inserts lore that makes the BOS less than it was. It also makes the BOS look far worse than its predecessors. FO:3 made them heros as did Tactics and FO:2 to an extent. Even Fallout 1 made them benevolent to a certain extent. FO:NV completely reverses that trend and tries to make the NCR the 'last, best hope of humanity'. Really? I honestly never noticed. Still, I had plenty of things to do just wandering around. The landscape was much prettier than in FO:NV and much more interesting than vast plains of sun-baked sand. True, there was more than just sand, but it was all so dull. I had a much better time without the plura of quests that FO:NV had. And I am sure that FO:3's quests were longer.
