New Vegas is a better game. And I mean that in the sense that you can go more places and interact with the story and setting in more ways in New Vegas. Also, what do they eat? Fallout 3? unknown. New Vegas? you see corn fields and such all over the place.
In Fallout 3, the NPCs have no existence beyond their part in the highly scripted story. You choices in game don’t matter at all in the way the story ends.
New Vegas has little bits and pieces of setting and backstory for random NPCs that you might never meet, and the story can be completed in different ways, your choices matter.
Evidence of farming, or any food source for the NPCs shows that the makers of the game were actually thinking about the world as a livable space.
Fallout 3 devs were just thinking about a world where the story happens, nothing more. And it often shows. You run into little immersion breaking moments, especially if you go too far off the rails. Stay on the rails and it was a solid game.
New Vegas had devs who really paid attention to the details of the world, and if you went off the rails, it became an amazing game.
The capitol wasteland is in much worse shape than the Mohave. From what we see in Fallout 3, people generally eat squirrels, iguanas and pre-war food.
The capitol wasteland pretty much works on the basis of scavenging and trading with the occasional herd of brahmin or small farm here and there.
Fallout 3 also has a big emphasis on water, Megaton has a water purifier that is about to give out while other settlements just drink irradiated water or trade with merchants.
The main story in Fallout 3 is terrible but the world building is pretty solid overall.
The main issue with the pre-war food is that it’s been 250+ years. Sure, you might find a cache or two, but overall, it will have been scavenged already.
The honest truth is, food and water sources for anyone in the capital wastes was never seen as important to the writers of the story, So it was cut. Well, it was cut if it was ever written at all in the first place.
The story of Fallout 3 is very linear. Which means that it can be tightened up and polished, and it was. But if you go even a little bit off the rails, it starts showing cracks that are immersion breaking.
New Vegas didn’t have that fully polished main story. Instead, it had a polished game world. One that felt alive and vibrant.
It’s the reason why people have x amount of time playing Fallout 3, and three or four times that amount playing New Vegas.
Fallout 3 takes place 200 years after the war and, like I said, the main story is terrible but most of the game has nothing to do with it.
New Vegas’ world is mostly empty and static, the writing and RPG mechanics like reputation are what make the game as good as it is.
The thing about New Vegas vs Fallout 3 is that they have different target audiences, Fallout 3 is a game about exploring and immersion while New Vegas is an old school rpg with big decisions central hubs.
I really don’t think you played New Vegas much if you think it wasn’t about exploring and finding new shit all over the place.
Fallout 3 had the quest hubs. Also, the fact that water was super important to the story, but aside from one beggar, no one seemed to care about it much.
But New Vegas, well, everyone wanted power from that dam.
It comes down to, what do they eat? Fallout 3, nothing. NPCs don’t eat, so there’s no need to actually put that into the game, and since that part isn’t in the game, a lot of other shit likely isn’t.
New Vegas, they have farms and ecology and all sorts of other shit, and it’s all over the place.
Fallout 3 is superior.
This is why you’re wrong.
New Vegas is a better game. And I mean that in the sense that you can go more places and interact with the story and setting in more ways in New Vegas. Also, what do they eat? Fallout 3? unknown. New Vegas? you see corn fields and such all over the place.
In Fallout 3, the NPCs have no existence beyond their part in the highly scripted story. You choices in game don’t matter at all in the way the story ends.
New Vegas has little bits and pieces of setting and backstory for random NPCs that you might never meet, and the story can be completed in different ways, your choices matter.
its not a good anti-fallout 3 video if it’s not at least 4 hours long
also, I too judge games based on whether there is evidence for subsistence farming. such gaming. much enjoyable.
Evidence of farming, or any food source for the NPCs shows that the makers of the game were actually thinking about the world as a livable space.
Fallout 3 devs were just thinking about a world where the story happens, nothing more. And it often shows. You run into little immersion breaking moments, especially if you go too far off the rails. Stay on the rails and it was a solid game.
New Vegas had devs who really paid attention to the details of the world, and if you went off the rails, it became an amazing game.
I don’t disagree on why NV is a better game, but do we really need an in-depth argument about it? Just do some bantz and let the guy have his opinion.
What kind of pretentious bullshit is this?
Designing coherent spaces is useful for game world designers to think about, but it could have been 5 minutes long and gotten the point across.
The capitol wasteland is in much worse shape than the Mohave. From what we see in Fallout 3, people generally eat squirrels, iguanas and pre-war food.
The capitol wasteland pretty much works on the basis of scavenging and trading with the occasional herd of brahmin or small farm here and there.
Fallout 3 also has a big emphasis on water, Megaton has a water purifier that is about to give out while other settlements just drink irradiated water or trade with merchants.
The main story in Fallout 3 is terrible but the world building is pretty solid overall.
The main issue with the pre-war food is that it’s been 250+ years. Sure, you might find a cache or two, but overall, it will have been scavenged already.
The honest truth is, food and water sources for anyone in the capital wastes was never seen as important to the writers of the story, So it was cut. Well, it was cut if it was ever written at all in the first place.
The story of Fallout 3 is very linear. Which means that it can be tightened up and polished, and it was. But if you go even a little bit off the rails, it starts showing cracks that are immersion breaking.
New Vegas didn’t have that fully polished main story. Instead, it had a polished game world. One that felt alive and vibrant.
It’s the reason why people have x amount of time playing Fallout 3, and three or four times that amount playing New Vegas.
Fallout 3 takes place 200 years after the war and, like I said, the main story is terrible but most of the game has nothing to do with it.
New Vegas’ world is mostly empty and static, the writing and RPG mechanics like reputation are what make the game as good as it is.
The thing about New Vegas vs Fallout 3 is that they have different target audiences, Fallout 3 is a game about exploring and immersion while New Vegas is an old school rpg with big decisions central hubs.
I really don’t think you played New Vegas much if you think it wasn’t about exploring and finding new shit all over the place.
Fallout 3 had the quest hubs. Also, the fact that water was super important to the story, but aside from one beggar, no one seemed to care about it much.
But New Vegas, well, everyone wanted power from that dam.
It comes down to, what do they eat? Fallout 3, nothing. NPCs don’t eat, so there’s no need to actually put that into the game, and since that part isn’t in the game, a lot of other shit likely isn’t.
New Vegas, they have farms and ecology and all sorts of other shit, and it’s all over the place.
I have over 200 hours in New Vegas, the map is not very interesting, the quests are.
I already went over how people in Fallout 3 get food, it’s there.
As we live in (post-apocalyptic) AMERICA, where DEMOCRACY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE, you are entitled to your wrong opinion
I don’t want to set the world on fire. I just want to start a flame in your heart.