Fallout 3 New Vegas is Gold with PC Specs

WabeWalker said:
It matters not one whit that the engine is old.

I take one look at this game, and I can see right away that this engine has it over any other. The roads, obviously, are the dustiest, the winds are the gustiest, the gates are the rustiest, the pies are the crustiest... the songs the lustiest... the friends the trustiest... Waaaaaaaaaay baaaaaaaaaaaack home.
Click to expand...

lol. I've been stuck with those old songs in my head for the past week. Which makes me think, they should make a warped and twisted Christmas DLC, lol

Spare-Flair said:
Graphics = Gameplay. You cannot always make that separation or distinction. A large part of Fallout is the atmosphere if they are hellbent on making it an FPS.

If it was still 2D, I would agree that Gameplay > Graphics for the most part.
Click to expand...

Dues Ex lovers would disagree. And by your standards, Crysis is far greater than Half Life 2. ;)

Michaelius said:
So speaking about gameplay is it again same old shitty Oblivion with guns ?
Click to expand...

Not really. You can notice some similarities, but not quite. It plays a lot better than Oblivion.
 
Parmenides said:
Dues Ex lovers would disagree. And by your standards, Crysis is far greater than Half Life 2. ;)

Not really. You can notice some similarities, but not quite. It plays a lot better than Oblivion.
Click to expand...

Crysis is far greater than Half Life 2. Oblivion also plays better than Fallout 3 :p

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For me Crysis is many times better than Half-Life 2. Half-Life 2 is a turd for me. Completely and utterly boring and uninvolving, a bland and scatterbrained FPS on rails in an empty feeling world that has nothing on the gripping gameplay and focused story of the original Half-Life in Black Mesa. Crysis is a beautiful game that has both sandbox elements and an interesting story and wonderful level design that is always populated by interesting things.

Also, for myself, Oblivion is a far, far, better game than Fallout 3. People complained that Oblivion's world was boring? At least it had forests, mountains, oceans, winter regions, rainforest, rolling fields, etc. Fallout 3 is Oblivion (with guns) where the entire freaking world is a boring brown desert with grey lumps (supposed to be ruins) with the same 5 enemies over and over and over again again. Oblivion's gameplay is 100x more diverse and open to player choice. You can make yourself a warrior, a mage, a thief, etc. and have a choice of hundreds of pieces of armor and weapons and spells, as well as having a horse for travel, etc. Fallout is an FPS where most of the time you just press the VATs button over and over again instead of using any skill. Clothing choices are all garbage, everything you find is useless junk (only useful for the garbage launching weapon). Walking anywhere takes forever.
 
Last edited:
Awesome, I can't wait .


I think I might be feeling a little under the weather on release day :D
 
Katotonic said:
Are they in some kind of agreement where they can't just switch over to another engine? At least they could pressure them update it at some point, this has to be the most dated engine in use for major titles.

It's not just that it's showing it's age, it's always been a rather weak engine both technically and artistically, at least to me. The Witcher used a very date Aurora (I believe) engine and I thought it looked great on the artistic side of things.
Click to expand...

Obsidian wasn't exactly given a lot of time to work on New Vegas so they wouldn't had time to get a new engine and then rebuild all the FO3 assets into it.

Spare-Flair said:
Why would it be? The engine for this game is from 9 years ago! (2001)
Click to expand...

Unreal Engine is over a decade old. Just because Gamebryo is old doesn't mean its never been updated.
 
Parmenides said:
Oh, I was thinking more about F3. I guess you played it too. What don't you like?
Click to expand...

There's a lot to dislike about Fallout 3, mostly that Bethesda can't write dialogue or design any interesting quests. It was also far too easy even on the hardest difficulty setting.

Thankfully, these won't be problems in New Vegas.
 
AceCR42 said:
There's a lot to dislike about Fallout 3, mostly that Bethesda can't write dialogue or design any interesting quests. It was also far too easy even on the hardest difficulty setting.

Thankfully, these won't be problems in New Vegas.
Click to expand...

Yeah, New Vegas should excel in that department. Though if you ever try Fallout 3 again, you should try FWE with Martigan's mutant mod with extra spawn settings. Lots of challenge and lots of fun.

polonyc2 said:
how do you know that?
Click to expand...

Well, I can't speak for difficulty in fighting enemies, but there will be a "hardcore mode" which seems to take principles in FWE for fallout 3.

And as far as great plot and characters, Obsidian rivals Bioware in that department. I'm not expecting much as far as dialogue animations, but aside from that the characters will be quite real and Obsidian has a great sense for good plot.
 
Parmenides said:
And as far as great plot and characters, Obsidian rivals Bioware in that department. I'm not expecting much as far as dialogue animations, but aside from that the characters will be quite real and Obsidian has a great sense for good plot.
Click to expand...

^^ I'm betting that will be stronger than Fallout 3's which were "pretty good" but could have stood to be fleshed out in some areas more.
 
Spare-Flair said:
Crysis is far greater than Half Life 2. Oblivion also plays better than Fallout 3 :p

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For me Crysis is many times better than Half-Life 2. Half-Life 2 is a turd for me. Completely and utterly boring and uninvolving, a bland and scatterbrained FPS on rails in an empty feeling world that has nothing on the gripping gameplay and focused story of the original Half-Life in Black Mesa. Crysis is a beautiful game that has both sandbox elements and an interesting story and wonderful level design that is always populated by interesting things.
Click to expand...

GASP - Blasphemer! Crysis does have the graphics...but the storyline was forgettable and the end boss was retarded and out of place. If you're complaining about VATS making FO3 easy, then complain about Crysis' ability to cloak - that was pretty much the whole game in a nutshell - cloak, kill, recharge, rinse, lather, repeat.

Anyway, further proof of gameplay > graphics is found in Minecraft. Tons of people are flocking to the game and it's gathered a cult-like following. That is certainly one ugly duckling, but the gameplay is what everyone is ranting about.
 
Spare-Flair said:
Crysis is far greater than Half Life 2. Oblivion also plays better than Fallout 3 :p

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For me Crysis is many times better than Half-Life 2. Half-Life 2 is a turd for me. Completely and utterly boring and uninvolving, a bland and scatterbrained FPS on rails in an empty feeling world that has nothing on the gripping gameplay and focused story of the original Half-Life in Black Mesa. Crysis is a beautiful game that has both sandbox elements and an interesting story and wonderful level design that is always populated by interesting things.

Also, for myself, Oblivion is a far, far, better game than Fallout 3. People complained that Oblivion's world was boring? At least it had forests, mountains, oceans, winter regions, rainforest, rolling fields, etc. Fallout 3 is Oblivion (with guns) where the entire freaking world is a boring brown desert with grey lumps (supposed to be ruins) with the same 5 enemies over and over and over again again. Oblivion's gameplay is 100x more diverse and open to player choice. You can make yourself a warrior, a mage, a thief, etc. and have a choice of hundreds of pieces of armor and weapons and spells, as well as having a horse for travel, etc. Fallout is an FPS where most of the time you just press the VATs button over and over again instead of using any skill. Clothing choices are all garbage, everything you find is useless junk (only useful for the garbage launching weapon). Walking anywhere takes forever.
Click to expand...

Since when was Crysis a sandbox? Sure you could explore in early levels of the game, but there was shit all to do before gawk at the "amazing" graphics and 100s of the exact same tree. Sure you could take each encounter differently, but there was no point in it. The game gave you no sense of accomplishment for doing things one way versus another. Then when the aliens came into the picture the game turned to utter shit. You say HK2's world is bland, well so is Crysis'. The world doesn't feel alive. It feels static and scripted. The much vaunted destructibility is laughable. Every single breakable building breaks the same way. Every single tree breaks the same way. Nothing dynamic about that in the least bit. Crysis' gameplay was competent at least. Shooting guns felt good.

Oblivion unmodded is an utter piece of unplayable trash. Far removed from Daggerfall and Morrowind. It offered nowhere near the freedom or options as either game. The game world was dull and uninspired. Most missions were pretty damn terrible (piss poor writing, occasional poor scripting, general poor layout) and the main quest was fairly laughable. The only good quests in the entire bloody game are the Dark Brotherhood ones because they were different and made you actually use the game's mechanics in interesting ways. Beyond that, everything about the game design was bland. Bland enemies, bland characters, bland weapons, bland armor, and so on. Nothing beyond a-typical boring and generic fantasy affair.
 
I'm really looking forward to this game. Wish that it was coming out on Friday instead of Tuesday because I wouldn't mind playing it through the weekend. I bet my copy is sitting in the back room of the EB Games store where I preordered it right now, too.

I enjoyed Fallout 3 quite a bit, so I'm sure to be in for more of the same. I've read some complaints about the dated engine but, honestly, I think it looks pretty alright and besides, if it were an all-new engine, it probably wouldn't run nearly as well and negatively affect the game experience.

That's the problem I had with Oblivion originally: it looked fantastic but the textures and even low settings chugged like a maniac on the piddly hardware I owned at the time. So I stopped playing with the intention of coming back to it when I upgraded... but I never did since I had already moved onto different games.
 
Can't forget all the people playing Mount & Blade on DX11 generation cards and i7's. There's no other game with gameplay like it. Actually there is a reason for using heavy hardware for a game with weaker graphics: huge battles with hundreds upon hundreds of units fighting simultaneously. You can even have a thousand, though it might be unstable at that quantity.

I guess some people choose graphics first. For me and a lot of other people I hear from, it's about the gameplay. Just ask the team fortress people or the counterstrike people.
 
Parmenides said:
Can't forget all the people playing Mount & Blade on DX11 generation cards and i7's. There's no other game with gameplay like it. Actually there is a reason for using heavy hardware for a game with weaker graphics: huge battles with hundreds upon hundreds of units fighting simultaneously. You can even have a thousand, though it might be unstable at that quantity.

I guess some people choose graphics first. For me and a lot of other people I hear from, it's about the gameplay. Just ask the team fortress people or the counterstrike people.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. In videogames, the gameplay is more important than graphics. If you want good graphics then go watch Avatar or Shrek.
 
Which is more important, graphics or gameplay - it's an age old debate, and for me, the answer is neither, because I want a game that hooks me with amazing gameplay, and causes me to sit there starring at my monitor with my jaw on the floor due to the equally amazing graphics.
 
WabeWalker said:
Which is more important, graphics or gameplay - it's an age old debate, and for me, the answer is neither, because I want a game that hooks me with amazing gameplay, and causes me to sit there starring at my monitor with my jaw on the floor due to the equally amazing graphics.
Click to expand...

:confused: What is better, a powerful quarterback or a reliable quarterback? neither because I want both for my team.


I think it's safe to say we all would choose both, if there weren't sacrifices on one side or the other.
 
Katotonic said:
Yeah that's what I was saying, the second part of my post was about the mod-ability of the game, its redeeming attribute. Metro 2033 was gorgeous and I loved the gameplay. The story was solid and the environments were cool, some intense moments.
Click to expand...

Yes but when you unload a clip with your crosshair directly over an opponent's face at point blank range in Metro 2033 and he doesn't die It's at the very least game breaking.

Spare-Flair said:
Why would it be? The engine for this game is from 9 years ago! (2001)
Click to expand...

What the hell does that mean? Source is from what 2004? If you ask me Fallout 3 and any recent source game looks better than anything running on UE3.

wfalcon said:
GASP - Blasphemer! Crysis does have the graphics...but the storyline was forgettable and the end boss was retarded and out of place. If you're complaining about VATS making FO3 easy, then complain about Crysis' ability to cloak - that was pretty much the whole game in a nutshell - cloak, kill, recharge, rinse, lather, repeat.

Anyway, further proof of gameplay > graphics is found in Minecraft. Tons of people are flocking to the game and it's gathered a cult-like following. That is certainly one ugly duckling, but the gameplay is what everyone is ranting about.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
Last edited:
Parmenides said:
:confused: What is better, a powerful quarterback or a reliable quarterback? neither because I want both for my team.


I think it's safe to say we all would choose both, if there weren't sacrifices on one side or the other.
Click to expand...

Why does the one have to be sacrificed for the other to be strong? A great looking game can surely also have great gameplay?
 
Derangel said:
Since when was Crysis a sandbox? Sure you could explore in early levels of the game, but there was shit all to do before gawk at the "amazing" graphics and 100s of the exact same tree. Sure you could take each encounter differently, but there was no point in it. The game gave you no sense of accomplishment for doing things one way versus another. Then when the aliens came into the picture the game turned to utter shit. You say HK2's world is bland, well so is Crysis'. The world doesn't feel alive. It feels static and scripted. The much vaunted destructibility is laughable. Every single breakable building breaks the same way. Every single tree breaks the same way. Nothing dynamic about that in the least bit. Crysis' gameplay was competent at least. Shooting guns felt good.

Oblivion unmodded is an utter piece of unplayable trash. Far removed from Daggerfall and Morrowind. It offered nowhere near the freedom or options as either game. The game world was dull and uninspired. Most missions were pretty damn terrible (piss poor writing, occasional poor scripting, general poor layout) and the main quest was fairly laughable. The only good quests in the entire bloody game are the Dark Brotherhood ones because they were different and made you actually use the game's mechanics in interesting ways. Beyond that, everything about the game design was bland. Bland enemies, bland characters, bland weapons, bland armor, and so on. Nothing beyond a-typical boring and generic fantasy affair.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Whether or not Crysis is a good game is irrelevant: he said that H-L2 is the epitome of mundanity in games, which is correct.
 
WabeWalker said:
Why does the one have to be sacrificed for the other to be strong? A great looking game can surely also have great gameplay?
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be. But I'll take Baldur's Gate 2 over the Sims. But yes, both is the ideal.

Jellylesg said:
You're missing the point. Whether or not Crysis is a good game is irrelevant: he said that H-L2 is the epitome of mundanity in games, which is correct.
Click to expand...

Not really, it's always changing. It's linear no doubt, but the situation changes. And yet some people like mundanity. But that's beside the point, except that mundanity doesn't determine quality of gameplay. It can be a factor though, sometimes more important of a factor than other times.
 
wfalcon said:
Anyway, further proof of gameplay > graphics is found in Minecraft. Tons of people are flocking to the game and it's gathered a cult-like following. That is certainly one ugly duckling, but the gameplay is what everyone is ranting about.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. Minecraft is not about atmosphere. It's about creative fun and building your own world within the laws of the game (physics, monster AI, etc.)

Fallout on the other hand should be an atmospheric post-apocalyptic game that draws you into the world. I got this feeling from the 2D versions. The 3D version however didn't do it for me. Bethseda's FO3 world just felt bland, boring, overly repetitive, and very cheesy because the engine has muddy textures, polygon limitations, and bad animation.
 
Last edited:
Parmenides said:
It doesn't have to be. But I'll take Baldur's Gate 2 over the Sims. But yes, both is the ideal.



Not really, it's always changing. It's linear no doubt, but the situation changes. And yet some people like mundanity. But that's beside the point, except that mundanity doesn't determine quality of gameplay. It can be a factor though, sometimes more important of a factor than other times.
Click to expand...

Mundanity was the wrong word to choose. Mediocrity, perhaps. Or maybe just shit.
 
Spare-Flair said:
Apples and oranges. Minecraft is not about atmosphere. It's about creative fun and building your own world within the laws of the game (physics, monster AI, etc.)

Fallout on the other hand should be an atmospheric post-apocalyptic game that draws you into the world. I got this feeling from the 2D versions. The 3D version however didn't do it for me. Bethseda's FO3 world just felt bland, boring, overly repetitive, and very cheesy because the engine has muddy textures, polygon limitations, and bad animation.
Click to expand...

FO3 is one of the few games where I felt like I could do whatever I want. I really loved the atmosphere. Once again what FPS games have you enjoyed recently? I can't think of anything aside from Metro (shitty game) or Crysis that really looks that much better than FO3.

Jellylesg said:
Mundanity was the wrong word to choose. Mediocrity, perhaps. Or maybe just shit.
Click to expand...

Yep, the game that is widely renown as one of if not the best PC game ever is shit. :rolleyes:
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
FO3 is one of the few games where I felt like I could do whatever I want. I really loved the atmosphere. Once again what FPS games have you enjoyed recently? I can't think of anything aside from Metro (shitty game) or Crysis that really looks that much better than FO3.

Yep, the game that is widely renown as one of if not the best PC game ever is shit. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There are tons of people on this forum that feel Half-Life 2 is not a good game. Just because something is massively consumed does not make it good in everyone's eyes. It might just not be our cup of tea. Half-Life 1 was massively gripping for me. Half-Life 2 just felt discombobulated and uninteresting. I bought it for CS only.

The COD games actually have a very beautiful engine (despite it being heavily modified Quake 3 engine) and are a good example of crappy single player gameplay (except for the sniper mission) while having good graphics.

I'm not saying that old games like Deux Ex weren't great because of their graphics, but those games aren't being sold as new games today with current gen technology. Fallout 3 and New Vegas are.

Metro 2033 is a great game though, I was scared out of my mind to play more than half-way through though. I was simply blown away by the depth of the gameplay. When I played the levels where you fight the nazis and I discovered that the game actually had a working stealth system and I could actually find alternate routes and do things lie turn off the generators, etc. instead of shooting my way through (with how strict the game is with ammunition), I was blown away and couldn't stop thinking about this game.

I just love Fallout and don't get me wrong, I played FO3 for many months when it first came out but I can't play it again and I couldn't play New Vegas because it just looks so bland. I am a visual person. I hate the Gamebyro engine. One day, Fallout 4 will be out, maybe TES V will be too...and it's likely they'll be on a new IDtech engine. I'll come back to the fold then.
 
Spare-Flair said:
There are tons of people on this forum that feel Half-Life 2 is not a good game. Just because something is massively consumed does not make it good in everyone's eyes. It might just not be our cup of tea. Half-Life 1 was massively gripping for me. Half-Life 2 just felt discombobulated and uninteresting. I bought it for CS only.

The COD games actually have a very beautiful engine (despite it being heavily modified Quake 3 engine) and are a good example of crappy single player gameplay (except for the sniper mission) while having good graphics.

I'm not saying that old games like Deux Ex weren't great because of their graphics, but those games aren't being sold as new games today with current gen technology. Fallout 3 and New Vegas are.

Metro 2033 is a great game though, I was scared out of my mind to play more than half-way through though. I was simply blown away by the depth of the gameplay. When I played the levels where you fight the nazis and I discovered that the game actually had a working stealth system and I could actually find alternate routes and do things lie turn off the generators, etc. instead of shooting my way through (with how strict the game is with ammunition), I was blown away and couldn't stop thinking about this game.

I just love Fallout and don't get me wrong, I played FO3 for many months when it first came out but I can't play it again and I couldn't play New Vegas because it just looks so bland. I am a visual person. I hate the Gamebyro engine. One day, Fallout 4 will be out, maybe TES V will be too...and it's likely they'll be on a new IDtech engine. I'll come back to the fold then.
Click to expand...

Funny, I actually thought Fallout 3 was one of the best looking games I played in a long time when it came out. Of course I'm not really into the latest shooters that much and spent a lot of time on Mount and Blade and Oblivion over the past few years so really graphics don't matter that much to me.
 
The one thing I'm worried about is that the destruction I saw all around me in Fallout 3 - the bombed out buildings, the tree stumps, the radiated water, etc. etc. - is missing in New Vegas.

Everyone always says, oh, but Vegas wasn't bombed.

Who cares. Make it so that it was. This is fiction and you can do whatever you want. A strategic airbase, say, could have been located there.

The point is that the world just doesn't feel post apocalyptic to me, and that was where Fallout 3 just hit the nail on the head. I loved the atmosphere of that game. I just have such high hopes for Vegas that I'll almost certainly be let down.

Fallout 3 just completely owned me for an entire month, something that no game since then has done.
 
WabeWalker said:
The one thing I'm worried about is that the destruction I saw all around me in Fallout 3 - the bombed out buildings, the tree stumps, the radiated water, etc. etc. - is missing in New Vegas.

Everyone always says, oh, but Vegas wasn't bombed.

Who cares. Make it so that it was. This is fiction and you can do whatever you want. A strategic airbase, say, could have been located there.

The point is that the world just doesn't feel post apocalyptic to me, and that was where Fallout 3 just hit the nail on the head. I loved the atmosphere of that game. I just have such high hopes for Vegas that I'll almost certainly be let down.

Fallout 3 just completely owned me for an entire month, something that no game since then has done.
Click to expand...

The fiction is an important part of the universe. You can't just up and change it. You can't make a cohesive story if you just up and change the very things that bind it, the back story, the things that created the setting. We've had five games (Original, 2, 3, Tactics, and Brotherhood of Steel) that have dealt with bombed out areas. Its time to show a different area of the world. Personally I'd love to see them take it out of the US and go to Europe or something and show what the rest of the world in that universe is like. Its never really touched on in the fiction so that would give the team a chance to work a little more freely from the confines of the well established story that basically focuses on the United States.
 
Derangel said:
The fiction is an important part of the universe. You can't just up and change it. You can't make a cohesive story if you just up and change the very things that bind it, the back story, the things that created the setting. We've had five games (Original, 2, 3, Tactics, and Brotherhood of Steel) that have dealt with bombed out areas. Its time to show a different area of the world. Personally I'd love to see them take it out of the US and go to Europe or something and show what the rest of the world in that universe is like. Its never really touched on in the fiction so that would give the team a chance to work a little more freely from the confines of the well established story that basically focuses on the United States.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't care.

I liked Fallout 3 because it actually did feel like a post apocalyptic world. Another guy, at another forum, made an astute comment, I thought, in saying that, at least from the screenshots, New Vegas looks more like Red Dead Redemption than it does a Fallout game.

I hope the actual game does make me feel like I'm in a post apocalyptic setting, but I have good reason to be worried about this.

The bright blue sky is catering to people who didn't like the grayness of Fallout 3. Post apocalyptic worlds shouldn't have blue skies in them. And if you want to go to Wikipedia and prove me wrong about that, well then good for you. I want to play a Fallout game that makes me feel like I'm in a world devastated from nuclear war, reality and 'Fallout lore' be damned.
 
Last edited:
Most of these videos I've seen are probably being played on the console due to obvious xbox controller input "issues" the players suffer from. I'm hoping the actual PC version will have some higher detail texture so it doesn't look quite so awful.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Most of these videos I've seen are probably being played on the console due to obvious xbox controller input "issues" the players suffer from. I'm hoping the actual PC version will have some higher detail texture so it doesn't look quite so awful.
Click to expand...

Im sure the pc textures will look better then the console one's, but it will be like fallout 3 on pc vs fallout 3 console textures.

Good news is easy to replace them on pc! :D
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Most of these videos I've seen are probably being played on the console due to obvious xbox controller input "issues" the players suffer from. I'm hoping the actual PC version will have some higher detail texture so it doesn't look quite so awful.
Click to expand...

How could you say the graphics look awful? They look fine to me.
 
Wabe, I really like the same thing you described in Fallout 3 a lot. The faded colors, the post apocalyptic atmosphere, all that great stuff. Even if the blue sky is more realistic, I like the green, etc.... And the thought of having a fallout in Vegas with bright colors is far from my first choice for another fallout. But you really have to go into this with an open mind otherwise it will be like Dragon Age for you. If you can get past the artwork, I'm sure Obsidian will deliver in full.


Anyways, I have no doubt that there will be a lot of areas that look run down. It just won't be a whole capital city.
 
Last edited:
I thought the outdoor graphics in Metro 2033 were stunning when you cranked all the features up. I couldn't help but wonder how awesome Fallout 3 would've been if they could've used the Metro engine. Maybe even throw in the gasmask gameplay mechanic but make the filters last much longer.
 
WabeWalker said:
Yeah, I don't care.

I liked Fallout 3 because it actually did feel like a post apocalyptic world. Another guy, at another forum, made an astute comment, I thought, in saying that, at least from the screenshots, New Vegas looks more like Red Dead Redemption than it does a Fallout game.

I hope the actual game does make me feel like I'm in a post apocalyptic setting, but I have good reason to be worried about this.

The bright blue sky is catering to people who didn't like the grayness of Fallout 3. Post apocalyptic worlds shouldn't have blue skies in them. And if you want to go to Wikipedia and prove me wrong about that, well then good for you. I want to play a Fallout game that makes me feel like I'm in world devastated from nuclear war, reality and 'Fallout lore' be damned.
Click to expand...

See thats the thing, Fallout lore is what defines every aspect of the universe. You have to trust that someone like Chris Avallone (who was one of the people who wrote the Fallout Bible an extensive guide to the franchise and also was one of the creators of Fallout 2) knows what he's doing with the universe. There was a lot more to FO3 than just bombed out buildings and the sky. New Vegas can still feel post-apocalyptic even without having been nuked. The way people act, the way some things look, and so on. The area outside of New Vegas looks like it'll feel a lot more like FO3.

If you want more Fallout games in bombed out areas play any of the other four titles. Hell two of them are a lot better than FO3. Let developers explore different ideas a little bit. Everything doesn't have to be exactly the fucking same. If NV was a carbon copy of FO3 I wouldn't be interested in it. I'm far beyond burnt out on that game. To the point where I have no interest in playing it again for a long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top