Direction of New Vegas' DLC

Naissus

It Wandered In From the Wastes
So the game is here, and there are quite a few references to Van Buren and the 1st two Fallouts. It is possible, and this is just my own wishes and hopes and dreams, that one of the dlc is set in one of the locations from the first or second games. What would everyone here want to see in the dlc?
 
I want to see something attached to the existing game, like expanded cities with more quests etc. The main reason I disliked FO3 DLC was their distance from the capital wasteland, they felt like different games or "dungeons with loot" instead of additions.

Just my 2 cents :).
 
I'm pretty sure they'd make an Area 51 DLC. I'm not too excited about it, but it would sell. Personally though, I wouldn't mind visiting San Diego/Tijuana. San Tijuego! :lol:

Other than that, I hope we get more quests regarding people and places already in the game. For example, smaller towns seem pretty desolate and could do with a few more quests.
 
The map is still big enough to feature some additions, especially in the north west. Maybe they will do some stuff up there, which I would like.

I personally don't like this "let's travel far outside of the main gameworld because of whatever reason"-thingy.
 
agreed. If thats how they want to add content, why have a huge open world in the first place?


Conversely,

I always thought it would be better to do away with the open sandbox style, and just have many detailed areas spread around a "travel map" like in f1&2. You'd have to make supply arrangements to deal with long days/nights traveling across desolate desert wastes, periodicly dealing with random encounters ect.

Traveling from one town/area to the next would be like a fallout version of oregon trail.
 
AMEN!!!!! I hate the genericness of these open world games. I wish they would go back to smaller places full of details, unique styles, and characters.

mobucks said:
agreed. If thats how they want to add content, why have a huge open world in the first place?


Conversely,

I always thought it would be better to do away with the open sandbox style, and just have many detailed areas spread around a "travel map" like in f1&2. You'd have to make supply arrangements to deal with long days/nights traveling across desolate desert wastes, periodicly dealing with random encounters ect.

Traveling from one town/area to the next would be like a fallout version of oregon trail.
 
The game world in New Vegas is really close to NCR and Vault 15. And vault 15 is extremely close to "Area 51."

I was really apathetic when it came to Fallout 3's DLCs (I never bought or played them), but if Obsidian can expand the New Vegas world with Van Buren and Fallout 1-2 content? That would be something I'd buy.
 
mobucks said:
agreed. If thats how they want to add content, why have a huge open world in the first place?


Conversely,

I always thought it would be better to do away with the open sandbox style, and just have many detailed areas spread around a "travel map" like in f1&2. You'd have to make supply arrangements to deal with long days/nights traveling across desolate desert wastes, periodicly dealing with random encounters ect.

Traveling from one town/area to the next would be like a fallout version of oregon trail.

Open world's is what 'Bethesda does' make a world that's either unbelievably packed full of stuff which makes no sense, or a more realistically sized world where it takes 5-10 minutes to get anywhere interesting.
 
Lexx said:
The map is still big enough to feature some additions, especially in the north west. Maybe they will do some stuff up there, which I would like.

I personally don't like this "let's travel far outside of the main gameworld because of whatever reason"-thingy.

I am the only one here which always had the feeling F3s world was "to small" ? (Vegas has roughly the same size no ?). I mean dont get me wrong, but it seems the map is already quite crowded runing now suddenly every 2 min in a settlement, situation, camp, etc. isnt really what I see as wasteland. I disslike runing for 30 min just as anyone else, but hey you have fast travel for a reason (and it would have been soooo great to finally get a somewhat realistic transportation systesm no ? Guarding caravans or such).
 
I'd like to see parts of Arizona, or the Mormons. Don't know why,I always have a weak spot for them. Though, I have no problem with new areas the player has to travel to, as long as it is well described.


Speaking of DLC, I found a tunnel with no purpose up in north, almost the same like in FO3.... :D
 
Personally I would like to see both the existing map being more fleshed out and I would like to see Obsidian using some of their abandoned Van Buren ideas like The Grand Canyon, The Reservation, Dog Town/Denver and hopefully the Nursery being carried out.

A visit to Shady Sands or the settlement near the Vault 15 place would also be nice.

I hear people bringing up Area 51, and while that place is very interesting, especially in Deus Ex 1, you all know just as well as I do that it would probably be used for even more alien nonsense.

In my preferred take the place is a destroyed surface military airbase with a vast secret underground complex a la West Tek on it where all kinds of advanced research took place like advanced airplane design, rocketry/missile development, weapons, genetic engineering and so on.

Perhaps indeed being inhabited by a group of scientists, with NCR and the BOS fighting over it.
 
I can't stand that everyone is so fixed on damn Area 51.

I agree with The Dutch Ghost, the Grand Canyon would be a much better place, it is also not very far away and the player going to this place can be explained in a good and logical way.

Especially Red Rock Canyon in NV looks very good, imo. I could like it to see more of such landscapes.
 
mobucks said:
agreed. If thats how they want to add content, why have a huge open world in the first place?


Conversely,

I always thought it would be better to do away with the open sandbox style, and just have many detailed areas spread around a "travel map" like in f1&2. You'd have to make supply arrangements to deal with long days/nights traveling across desolate desert wastes, periodicly dealing with random encounters ect.

Traveling from one town/area to the next would be like a fallout version of oregon trail.
I like that, and it seems more realistic. The way human society evolved over these many millennia is because they stuck together and assimilated into larger groups, not because small groups ran around doing their own things independently of everyone else.

It would be more of a Mad Max/Book of Eli feel with a sparse number of large societies with lots of desolate wasteland around it, FO1/2 style.

sea said:
If there is an Area 51, there had better not be aliens. They were always a shady area of canon and Bethesda's take on then in Mothership Zeta made me wish they were never in Fallout to begin with. Assuming it'd have no aliens, I'd honestly love to see Area 51, just because it'd be a subtle middle finger given to Bethesda in the same vein as NPCs commenting "only idiots eat 200 year old food".
FO1 did aliens right - there was one random encounter where you may have been able to get the blaster and some ammo.

FO2 was ridiculous with the number of alien random encounters.

FO3: Mothership Zeta was an abortion.

I understand how Roswell-style aliens are tied to "SCIENCE!" but in that same respect they are supposed to be mysterious and rare, not common place. Being abducted makes no sense in so many ways to count, partly because aliens have no reason to visit a world destroyed by nuclear warheads and then abduct its irradiated, unhealthy people who use relatively primitive technology.
 
considering the fact that they made Vegas the lidle brother of Reno (hands down ... its the same kind of luzliness ... ) you can be damn SURE that a DLC will come out covering Area51 and that it will for sure have Aliens. Area Ceta anyone ? ... I think I have read somewhere that Bethesda will do the DLCs. So I dont expect here a lot.
 
Mapex said:
FO1 did aliens right - there was one random encounter where you may have been able to get the blaster and some ammo.

FO2 was ridiculous with the number of alien random encounters.

In Fallout 1, it was just an easteregg. In Fallout 2, the Wanamingos aren't aliens, they are just called like that.


If Bethesda is doing the DLCs, one can be sure that they will suck.
 
Surf Solar said:
Speaking of DLC, I found a tunnel with no purpose up in north, almost the same like in FO3.... :D

[spoiler:9b7170e62e]The one that is booby trapped to hell for no apparent reason?[/spoiler:9b7170e62e]
 
I probably will get some flack from some fellow NMA'ers for this but I would like there to be ten additional levels in one of the new DLCs,
 
Well, how interesting is the game once you hit the cap? I came pretty darn close to it on the first playthrough and I didn't even explore half of the Wasteland. Now, how fun would the DLC be if you have nowhere further to progress?
 
But I am not playing the game to level up my character. It's a nice side effect, but not the core gameplay nor what would be needed to keep me playing.
 
Back
Top