LogFAQs > #904412912

Sahuagin posted...

a proper counter-argument to what I'm saying is to say whether or not you found the "total aesthetic" as I've described it better in NV than in F3. has anyone? maybe you like the game more, but does anyone appreciate the overall atmosphere and aesthetic of NV more than F3? is exploring the mojave a thoroughly more enjoyable and satisfying experience than exploring the DC wasteland?

I would say yes to every single one of those things.

Even at the most basic level, the overall "orange-y/brown" aesthetic that's at the core of NV design looks better to me than the sickly green aesthetic of Fallout 3 (even the amber Pip-Boy filter looks better than the green one). On a more granular level, I'd argue that NV takes most of what 3 does in general with design and tone and does it far better.

In terms of music and general sound, I'd easily say I prefer NV. In terms of mechanics, combat felt more fulfilling in NV (in 3, it felt so crap it made VATS almost a necessity, but in NV I was far more likely to free shoot rather than depend entirely on VATS), and NV added in a lot more complexity that was present in the original Fallout games, but which Fallout 3 stripped out in an attempt to be more generally appealing to casual gamers. In terms of characterization and plot, NV blows 3 out of the water in every possible way.

As for exploration, I'd easily say NV does it far better than 3 does (and honestly, most of the time better than 4 does as well). I've explored every inch of the Mojave multiple times in multiple runs. In Fallout 3, I couldn't even bring myself to care to explore most of the Capital Wasteland even once, because most of what I did find felt utterly pointless and relatively dull. Every minor side-mission in 3 feels like an unconnected anecdote, often built entirely around a single one-note joke that someone in the writing brainstorming session probably thought was funny. NV at least tends to integrate its side-missions into the overall setting and narrative, making it feel like a living, breathing world.

Fallout 3 also has terrible map design, which both NV and 4 do much, much better. Downtown Boston is actually somewhat fun and interesting to explore - downtown Washington DC is a painful slog that you have to endure to get where you're going and unlock the fast travel points so you can avoid ever having to go through downtown again.



helIy posted...

nv is not a better game than 3 in a single way

I can't think of a single thing or aspect of game design that I would say Fallout 3 does better than New Vegas. I consider NV better than 3 in every conceivable way (and better than 4 in a lot of ways).

Even the bugginess (which is something that people tend to bring up in 3 vs NV arguments to support 3) doesn't really mean much to me, because NV is relatively fine post-patching (and no one should ever buy ANY game made in whole or in part by Bethesda at launch, because bugs are expected and will need to be patched over a period of months before the game becomes fully worthwhile). I actually had more crashes, freezes, glitches, and problems while playing Fallout 3 than I did NV (and most of the bugs in NV are generally the fault of being built in Fallout 3's engine with Fallout 3's assets anyway).


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family