Why do people seem to prefer Fallout New vegas to fallout 3.

[Shantih]

Does the wiki mention its sources?

 

I'm a metric system guy so I have to do the math in my head. Assuming that it's correct then it would look like the size of two regular cell phones put side to side.

 

It's not entirely unrelated but do you remember the original Robco Stealth Boy? It was supposed to be worn on the wrist according to ingame representation:

 

http://images.wikia.com/fallout/images/d/dd/STLTHBOY.gif

 

It doesn't look that small besides the wire and thingy on the top may make it a bit of a hindrance.

 

I'm not saying the Pipboy 2000 looks like a Stealth boy but both devices were made by RobCo. They may have some features in common.

[minngarm]

The 3000 is wrist mounted. Yes the mount covers most of the forarm but the common referance to this is "wrist mounted" its not literaly, its more of a common use term. So the 2000 could be believable with a similar mounting to the forarm.

[Gopher]

Does the wiki mention its sources?

 

I'm a metric system guy so I have to do the math in my head. Assuming that it's correct then it would look like the size of two regular cell phones put side to side.

 

Sounds about right, but that was just the screen. And as you can see from the in game image, the pipboy was actually bigger than the screen.

 

BTW are we the biggest nerds ever arguing over this? :)

[Shantih]

Does the wiki mention its sources?

 

I'm a metric system guy so I have to do the math in my head. Assuming that it's correct then it would look like the size of two regular cell phones put side to side.

 

Sounds about right, but that was just the screen. And as you can see from the in game image, the pipboy was actually bigger than the screen.

 

BTW are we the biggest nerds ever arguing over this? :)

 

We sure are. :thumbsup:

 

Anyway that's all assuming the values are relevant and as far as I'm concerned I don't know anything about that. :biggrin:

 

I'm going to play the first Fallout a bit and see if there is anything that would shed some light on this.

 

@minngarm: IMO wrist and forearm are not the same thing. You can wear a watch on the wrist, you wear bracers/arm guards on a forearm. To me that makes quite a difference. :happy:

[minngarm]

Does the wiki mention its sources?

 

I'm a metric system guy so I have to do the math in my head. Assuming that it's correct then it would look like the size of two regular cell phones put side to side.

 

Sounds about right, but that was just the screen. And as you can see from the in game image, the pipboy was actually bigger than the screen.

 

BTW are we the biggest nerds ever arguing over this? :)

 

We sure are. :thumbsup:

 

Anyway that's all assuming the values are relevant and as far as I'm concerned I don't know anything about that. :biggrin:

 

I'm going to play the first Fallout a bit and see if there is anything that would shed some light on this.

 

@minngarm: IMO wrist and forearm are not the same thing. You can wear a watch on the wrist, you wear bracers/arm guards on a forearm. To me that makes quite a difference. :happy:

 

 

Right I would agree with you on that, but the term in general is used to describe anything attaching on the wrist/forearm. Infact technically speaking a wrist watch does not go on the wrist but behind it as it would hender hand movement. The only thing I can think of in reallity that truly goes on the wrist is a wrist band that is flexable enough to be worn on it without hendering. I know its a bit cutting hairs, but the fact remains that its common used to describe anything on the forearm, and anything described as going on your wrist, is 9/10 going to really be on the forearm and not the wrist.

[Shantih]

Wearing something on your wrist is not like having a cast on the entire forearm... Also the wrist is at the junction between the arm and the hand. That's where you wear a watch no matter whether you call it your wrist or your forearm.

 

We don't know for sure but it seems fair to surmise that something that is worn on the wrist is not something that goes from the wrist to the elbow like the pipboy 3000.

[Gopher]

Wearing something on your wrist is not like having a cast on the entire forearm... Also the wrist is at the junction between the arm and the hand. That's where you wear a watch no matter whether you call it your wrist or your forearm.

 

We don't know for sure but it seems fair to surmise that something that is worn on the wrist is not something that goes from the wrist to the elbow like the pipboy 3000.

 

Actually I disagree that it is fair to surmise that. I always called the Pipboy 3000 wrist mounted. I will accept that I would be more accurate if I called it a 'forearm mounted' device, but at the same time I will probably keep calling it 'wrist mounted'. Where I come from we dont really use the term 'forearm' to be honest.

 

So generally while it may be possible to mount an object the size of the Pipboy 2000 Plus on a single 'wrist strap', I think it is unlikely as it would be horribly unstable. Honestly I think it would need to be secured at both vertical egdes at the very least. And something about all Fallout tech always strikes me as tending towards rugged and metallic. This is all supposition of course, but it might explain why the Pipboy 3000 seemed perfectly fallout to me. It is pretty much what I was expecting.

[Shantih]

I've played Fallout 1 for a few hours and I didn't find anything conclusive or anything that would shed light on this question.

 

For the record I don't mind players who like the pipboy 3000. I simply don't agree with players who see the pipboy 3000 as a Fallout icon. It would be fair to call it a Fallout 3 icon and leave it at that.

 

It should be obvious by now that have very little love for the pipboy 3000. IMO it mars all armours (especially power armours) and I think that from a simple practical perspective it would be a liability in any fight to have such a contraption that iirc can't even be removed!!! -please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this point (I think it's actually mentioned in F3).

 

That's why I'm much more inclined to favour a PDA design -especially one that looks more like the pipboy 2000.

 

I woud definitely call the pipboy 3000 "arm mounted" since it goes well beyond what I picture as a "wrist mounted" contraption but that is turning into a matter of semantics so we should agree to disagree on that point and move on with the discussion. :happy:

[duncandun]

I've always felt F:NV to be a poor follow up to FO3. I know that this will make me unpopular. But the common theme I seem to find is that those that love F:NV most are those that played the original games. The most common reason for loving F:NV is because it seems to flow straight from the old titles.

Let me make this argument: Compare each game's improvement over what came before.

Before FO3, the Fallout franchise was dead in the water, despite being loved by long time fans. Think of all that had to be created to bring Fallout back. Not only that, make it accessible to the average gamer (such as myself). I keep recalling all the praise that was heaped on FO3 when it was first released. And I still have my collector's art book from FO3. The art development was spectacular.

Compare this to the step F:NV had to make from FO3. Ask yourself how much actual new material was added to F:NV. The majority of material is taken directly from FO3. I'd argue that the mods that allow you to play both games together and those that port a mod from one game to the other prove my point.

If developers follow this simple formula, all the developers need to do is take the sum total of FO3 and F:NV, add a couple of new improvements and it will be the greatest Fallout ever. Everyone will be sitting around, scratching their heads, wondering why everyone thinks the new game is so much better.

My greatest problem from F:NV is the lack of immersion. When I played Oblivion, I got lost in the game. I played FO3, and got lost in the game. More then once. I played F:NV, I kept being reminded of things that came straight from FO3. You pick up a weapon, enter a room, look at the scripting, it was pulled almost whole from FO3.

It takes more to create something new then to copy something already done.

This is a silly complaint, Yes Bethesda did a lot of work to make a modern Fallout game. Thats great, I don't think many people criticize bethesda for doing so. However, expecting the same of Obsidian is plain dumb. They were contracted on by zenimax to develope a (quick) sequel to FO:3 using their existing assets. When judging the games you should do so on the quality of the writing, differences in gameplay, story direction, etc... less so than things Obsidian had no control over, like the game engine.

[minngarm]

I've always felt F:NV to be a poor follow up to FO3. I know that this will make me unpopular. But the common theme I seem to find is that those that love F:NV most are those that played the original games. The most common reason for loving F:NV is because it seems to flow straight from the old titles.

Let me make this argument: Compare each game's improvement over what came before.

Before FO3, the Fallout franchise was dead in the water, despite being loved by long time fans. Think of all that had to be created to bring Fallout back. Not only that, make it accessible to the average gamer (such as myself). I keep recalling all the praise that was heaped on FO3 when it was first released. And I still have my collector's art book from FO3. The art development was spectacular.

Compare this to the step F:NV had to make from FO3. Ask yourself how much actual new material was added to F:NV. The majority of material is taken directly from FO3. I'd argue that the mods that allow you to play both games together and those that port a mod from one game to the other prove my point.

If developers follow this simple formula, all the developers need to do is take the sum total of FO3 and F:NV, add a couple of new improvements and it will be the greatest Fallout ever. Everyone will be sitting around, scratching their heads, wondering why everyone thinks the new game is so much better.

My greatest problem from F:NV is the lack of immersion. When I played Oblivion, I got lost in the game. I played FO3, and got lost in the game. More then once. I played F:NV, I kept being reminded of things that came straight from FO3. You pick up a weapon, enter a room, look at the scripting, it was pulled almost whole from FO3.

It takes more to create something new then to copy something already done.

This is a silly complaint, Yes Bethesda did a lot of work to make a modern Fallout game. Thats great, I don't think many people criticize bethesda for doing so. However, expecting the same of Obsidian is plain dumb. They were contracted on by zenimax to develope a (quick) sequel to FO:3 using their existing assets. When judging the games you should do so on the quality of the writing, differences in gameplay, story direction, etc... less so than things Obsidian had no control over, like the game engine.

 

I dont see it as silly, but I do agree that using the same assets as in FO3 was the better choice, not just to cut down on development time, but also to allow for us the modders and users of mods to adapt previously made mods to the new game with little difficulty. Then theres the overall feel of similarity between the two that help you believe your in the same game world.

 

IMO ideally a series of games would be on the same engine, with the same assets. The game is made by storyline and playability for me. Not just new looks.