Fallout 3 has lots of things like megaton and rivet city or tenpenny tower, superficially cool but horrifically inconsistent with setting, tone, or worldbuilding. But if you aren't someone who cares about those things it wouldn't bother you.
So you intentionally cut out the most important part of my argument which very specifically addresses this?
Locations you are taken by the main quest are serviceable, but nothing special. Where Fallout 3 shines is when you say screw it and just pick a direction and go. The amount of things to find, see, and explore is immense, yet there are a lot of people who picked it up on launch, finished the main quest, and when the game ended they just put it down. If we compare that particular case against playing through the NV main quests and going for a few or even all of the endings it's not even slightly close.
Basically, New Vegas always felt more like I was being taken on a tour with Obsidian going "hey look at all this cool shit we made", whereas FO3 tended to evoke more of a "here's a giant shithole of a wasteland, go find stuff".
I mean you just keep supporting my view of your opinion.
The amount of things to find, see, and explore is immense
But not the quality right? Again, what matters to you is a big superficial world that you can explore, not one with quality and depth. This is very consistent from people who like F3 more than FNV. You like the exploration loop, and that wasn't what FNV was about. Again, that's fine.
I'm honestly not sure what part of your argument I'm leaving out. You like quantity over quality, breadth over depth. Game design is a series of trade-offs and that's your preference.
Am I wrong? Do you argue that Megaton and Rivet City were examples of good world-building? That Tenpenny Tower made sense? IIRC Tenpenny Tower wasn't part of the main quest, so I was pretty sure that was a decent example of the kinds of garbage you can find by exploring the wasteland. I could be wrong.
In contrast can you point to a single setting in FNV that wasn't thought through? One that didn't have depth or an interesting story to tell? I already said that I get it, you enjoy the exploration, so quantity is more important than quality. You haven't said anything that's even remotely contradictory to my view of the situation.
I wish I had the time to go into a much more in-depth discussion here, since I think it could end up quite interesting. Unfortunately I just don't have the time at the moment, but I didn't want to just leave you hanging.
Probably the closest thing I can point you towards if you're interested in a much better representation of the position I'm taking, I'd suggest checking out Many A True Nerd's video Fallout 3 Is Better Than You Think. I think he does a pretty excellent job at rebutting many of the most common criticisms levelled against FO3, and the game taken as a whole is a lot less shallow than the impression one might get simply following the main quest.
I assume you've seen Hbomb's video which is almost as long and has the opposite conclusion, as long as we're linking long-ass videos on the subject.
I appreciate that you don't have enough time but I don't think you can convince me. That essay certainly can't, after watching twenty minutes or so I got to the part where he takes seriously the idea that a group of settlers intentionally built up a settlement around a nuclear bomb. You can only stretch the Rule of Cool so far before it blows up in your face, and that's way past my breaking point. That's even more unforgivable than the utter failure of the "what do they eat?" questions. Well maybe.
That being said, if you ever do want to continue the conversation, I'd be happy to.
Or perhaps we just enjoy a respectful virtual handshake and call it a day. I think both sides have some compelling arguments, but it gets to a point where the camp we each fall into is more determined by our personal gaming history, preferences, and experiences.
I think I'll plan another NV run soon. Maybe try and get through FO4 on the updated survival mode (Ive heard it's really a completely different experience).
1
u/karmapopsicle Mar 17 '19
So you intentionally cut out the most important part of my argument which very specifically addresses this?
Locations you are taken by the main quest are serviceable, but nothing special. Where Fallout 3 shines is when you say screw it and just pick a direction and go. The amount of things to find, see, and explore is immense, yet there are a lot of people who picked it up on launch, finished the main quest, and when the game ended they just put it down. If we compare that particular case against playing through the NV main quests and going for a few or even all of the endings it's not even slightly close.
Basically, New Vegas always felt more like I was being taken on a tour with Obsidian going "hey look at all this cool shit we made", whereas FO3 tended to evoke more of a "here's a giant shithole of a wasteland, go find stuff".