Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
Bro nuking Megaton was lit as **** but it's such a dumb choice. Do you nuke a city or do you not nuke a city? Where's the interesting moral choice there? It's spectacle over substance. After you nuke Megaton that first time there's no reason to explore that path ever again.
And the scaling enemies of 3 vs. the standardized difficulty of NV gives structure to the experience of NV that makes it feel more like a real place rather than just a soulless sandbox where freedom is a mask for an uninteresting world. I mean Deathclaws are just potentially everywhere in 3 which makes the map feel stale whereas in NV you know where the Deathclaws are and it feels like an actual environment.
|
I don't give a **** so much about the "moral choice", if I did, I'd just play Mass Effect or something. It's more about feeling like my decisions matter. Obviously, you'd have to be completely ****ing evil to nuke a city, but it's a video game, so it's a blast to do it anyway.
I honestly prefer scaling. Knowing where certain enemies are and knowing how difficult they'll be makes a game less immersive, not more so. Scaling helps because it doesn't matter what way you approach the game, or in what order, you'll still feel a sense of natural progression regardless. The 'freedom as a mask for an uninteresting world' sounds more like Breath of the Wild than Fallout 3.
The individual stories in the quests of Fallout 3 were more interesting than the individual quest stories of NV. Weird vampire cannibals, a strange religious cult based on a bomb, a town wracked by giant mutated ants, a tree cult that worships a demi-human-tree, etc. Many of the quests in this game stuck with me in terms of story and the quests in NV just fell flat in comparison.