i tried replaying F3, NV and F4 after all these years, and they are just pure cringe.
Plays like a parody of an actual game.
Especially the dialogues and the writing.
Didnt have that problem with Fallout 1 and 2, these gems aged like fine wine.
>then yeah, i got filtered hard, hardest ive ever been filtered.
Seething.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>what does this even mean?
it means if you dont like what i like then you suck at game
You think New Vegas writing and dialogue is equivalent to a game with a vault full or Garys and another game where a ghoul lives in a fridge for 200 years. You were filtered.
You think New Vegas writing and dialogue is equivalent to a game with a vault full or Garys and another game where a ghoul lives in a fridge for 200 years. You were filtered.
2 years ago
Anonymous
you dont even know what filtered means
fricking moron
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm talking to someone who thinks New Vegas is the same as a bethesda looter shooter. I'm talking to someone who was filtered.
F3’s map sucks. It’s awful and tedious to get through. Constantly forced into sewers/subways. Even the towns are atrocious though too! Megaton is a nightmare.
Both games have their weaknesses, but the NV map was for more interesting that 3. Two years ago I began my first playthrough of 3 and for the most part I felt completely bored by its locations and map. The metro system is by far the worst. Sure, NV can be empty too with its vast desert but I felt much more intrigued.
Well, the map of New Vegas depicts and actual organic space. Once where things are placed logically, and create a network of sensible ideas, locations, political and economic relations, and all done with respect and consideration to the reality of the source space.
Meanwhile, Fo3 is literally just a bunch of literal random garbage. You have subway stations next to country side barns next to endless random boulder walls. There is absolutely zero basic consideration for ideas like "this was a farm land" and "this was a suburb" and "this was downtown urban area" - literally, the assets are placed down randomly.
Not a single location is placed with any kind of consideration for economical or ecological concerns, and does not reflect any form of political or social or economical order within the world.
Arefu, town entirely "themed" by fights with raiders, is next to a twon of little children that never had a single raider issue. Cantenbury Commons, a key trade route stop isn't on a route between any other places, does not have caravans, or lodgings, or shops, or bars, or even water and fodder for the brahmins - it's literally placed randomly, just to make sure there is always "equal" density of content everywhere, because of the ADHD customers.
On top of that, New Vegas has INCOMPARABLY more actual variety, going from arid grasslands to actual sand and dust bowls to massive canyons, to extensive farmlands, to actual ruins of a city that make sense, to dense forest of Jacob's Town.
And it more meaningful dungeons and POI's with actual thought out stories.
AND it isn't bathed in green because "lol radiation is green!"
Seriously, this isn't even a competition. New Vegas's map is good. Fallout 3's map is arguably the absolutely worst I've ever seen in a videogame, period.
New Vegas has the best map by far, the tunnel-based map of FO3 confused the living frick out of me. FO4's map is ok but is lacking in unique landmarks, unlike NV.
FO4 map is miles, miles worse than F76's (yes I actually played it no I'm not todd's shill). They finally hired competent people for its level design, it's a perfect post-nuclear exploration sim.
I prefer New Vegas as a game but prefer the open world and atmosphere of F3 . There hasn't been a game quite like it in those regards
>map is a square
Do bethesdagays really?
Fallout 4 and 76 too. Its weird considering they have maps like Skyrim that look more natural
it's a military map, they usually are like that
yes
it's full of Cazadors though
WTFFFFF
>The military made a map so the game must be squared
but why
worked for GTA SA
well ignoring the top left bit
?
while Los Santos is the superior city, that's not the whole map
there's actually a path like that from redrock to jacobstown?
i tried replaying F3, NV and F4 after all these years, and they are just pure cringe.
Plays like a parody of an actual game.
Especially the dialogues and the writing.
Didnt have that problem with Fallout 1 and 2, these gems aged like fine wine.
>NV
you mispelled 76
NV is the same category of trash as 3, 4 and 76.
The only difference is the colour filter.
Its orange instead of green.
You were filtered.
>filtered
what does this even mean?
it means they are trash games?
then yeah, i got filtered hard, hardest ive ever been filtered.
>then yeah, i got filtered hard, hardest ive ever been filtered.
Seething.
Seething NV gays.
>what does this even mean?
it means if you dont like what i like then you suck at game
yeah man, modern /v is just fricking cringe.
You think New Vegas writing and dialogue is equivalent to a game with a vault full or Garys and another game where a ghoul lives in a fridge for 200 years. You were filtered.
you dont even know what filtered means
fricking moron
I'm talking to someone who thinks New Vegas is the same as a bethesda looter shooter. I'm talking to someone who was filtered.
Has nothing to do with OP's question moron
It's 3, NV feels lesser, Nevada isn't such a small place.
F3’s map sucks. It’s awful and tedious to get through. Constantly forced into sewers/subways. Even the towns are atrocious though too! Megaton is a nightmare.
almost as if a nuke dropped and destroyed everything
Have you looked at Hiroshima / Nagasaki a few decades after the nuke? How about 200 years?
>2 nukes vs an actual nuclear war
8/10 made me reply
moron.
Fallout 3, without question. New Vegas map was by far it's weakest point.
Great map to see how infested the map of New Vegas is with invisible walls.
Fallout 3 Map is way bigger NV is just a motorway
>Fallout 3: 8.462 square kilometers
>Fallout NV: 8.502 square kilometers
come again?
Both games have their weaknesses, but the NV map was for more interesting that 3. Two years ago I began my first playthrough of 3 and for the most part I felt completely bored by its locations and map. The metro system is by far the worst. Sure, NV can be empty too with its vast desert but I felt much more intrigued.
Well, the map of New Vegas depicts and actual organic space. Once where things are placed logically, and create a network of sensible ideas, locations, political and economic relations, and all done with respect and consideration to the reality of the source space.
Meanwhile, Fo3 is literally just a bunch of literal random garbage. You have subway stations next to country side barns next to endless random boulder walls. There is absolutely zero basic consideration for ideas like "this was a farm land" and "this was a suburb" and "this was downtown urban area" - literally, the assets are placed down randomly.
Not a single location is placed with any kind of consideration for economical or ecological concerns, and does not reflect any form of political or social or economical order within the world.
Arefu, town entirely "themed" by fights with raiders, is next to a twon of little children that never had a single raider issue. Cantenbury Commons, a key trade route stop isn't on a route between any other places, does not have caravans, or lodgings, or shops, or bars, or even water and fodder for the brahmins - it's literally placed randomly, just to make sure there is always "equal" density of content everywhere, because of the ADHD customers.
On top of that, New Vegas has INCOMPARABLY more actual variety, going from arid grasslands to actual sand and dust bowls to massive canyons, to extensive farmlands, to actual ruins of a city that make sense, to dense forest of Jacob's Town.
And it more meaningful dungeons and POI's with actual thought out stories.
AND it isn't bathed in green because "lol radiation is green!"
Seriously, this isn't even a competition. New Vegas's map is good. Fallout 3's map is arguably the absolutely worst I've ever seen in a videogame, period.
NV, because 99% of urban DC is going from metro tunnel to metro tunnel.
Are you shitting me? Fo3 had godawful level design. Fnv had its frick ups too, but it also had tons of interesting quests in almost every location.
New Vegas has the best map by far, the tunnel-based map of FO3 confused the living frick out of me. FO4's map is ok but is lacking in unique landmarks, unlike NV.
FO4 map is miles, miles worse than F76's (yes I actually played it no I'm not todd's shill). They finally hired competent people for its level design, it's a perfect post-nuclear exploration sim.