When a player spends time poking around an old gas station or searching a racetrack only to find no interesting story, no cool weapon, or no unique set of armor, it makes them think that some locations aren't necessary to investigate. This is why many people feel the exploration is superior in Fallout 3 because it never seems like the player's time is wasted for checking out a location.
What if the old gas station or racetrack has been scavenged to hell and back? Not to mention it's been more than 200 years since the bomb fell. If the old gas station or racetrack has been re-purposed as a safe spot of some sort for other people, then that would make sense for them to have something like a cool weapon and/or unique set of armor in it. But if they've been abandoned for 200 years (or less if the designers decided to give them some backstory), doesn't that immediately tells you that the place hasn't seen a human being in a long while? And because of that, doesn't that mean the location already has 'interesting story'?
Just because real life places can be boring and pointless, doesn't mean a game has to immitate this in order to preserve the illusion of reality.
Not every exploration has to be rewarded with loot, though? Sometimes, giving a context of some sort to the overall gameworld condition as you complete exploring some place is the reward in and of itself. In short: lore pieces, either told or shown, or both. For example, let's take
East Pump Station in New Vegas. If we ignore the quest related to this location, and go by your standard, this is a pointless location because the only loot it offers that's worthwhile within this area is Fixin' Things magazine, which could be useful or useless based on what character you made, and even then the magazine can be found anywhere else (and even crafted if you have Lonesome Road DLC). It also doesn't have any cool weapon, nor any unique set of armor, so what's the point? Well, the point is, as it turns out, the place is responsible for filtering the water being pumped from Lake Las Vegas to NCR's Sharecropper Farm, so the NCR can grow their food. Not interesting enough for you? Well, that's because this is a game that's made by different developers who has different vision for what kind of game they wanted to make, and as it is their vision fits well with what I'm looking for in RPGs.
Fallout is not a simulation title, it's a role playing game.
In no way I'm trying to imply that Fallout is a simulation title and not an RPG. Also, you're saying this as if an RPG can't provide a simulation experience.
The 'premise' of Fallout is that it's a role playing game with a post-apocalyptic setting. You are confusing gameplay with story. It needs to fulfill its duty as a game before the other elements are even taken into account. If visited locations serve no purpose, then the software has failed. It might as well just be a virtual exploration simulator, a movie, or a book if you think its immediate purpose is to tell you a story. I personally think you need to do a little more research about video game development theory before you make any more foolish statements such as this. Not trying to be an asshole.
Lol, it's funny how you use this "game has to be a game first before telling any story!" argument to defend Fallout 3. Both Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 already achieved the near-perfect template of gameplay mechanics that fits so well with the established gameworld. And because of that, it managed to give unique experience beyond gameplay mechanics by showing us a world that's realistic within its context (take note that I'm not saying anything about real-life, here).
Dude, every Fallout game is a themepark. That's literally how an RPG is designed. Fallout 3 just isn't subtle about it.
In Arroyo you talk to some guys who teach you shit. Your buddy lost their dog Smoke and the well is broken. Hakunin needs you to kill some spore plants. All of this is set up for the player to go trigger. It's not like SimCity or something where shit happens without you. It just has to properly fit the theme.
Well, seems like it turns out that neither Fallout 1 and New Vegas is a themepark.
That's exactly the reason players feel differently about Fallout 3 and New Vegas. There are plenty of locations with purpose in New Vegas but not all. Look at a game like Metroid.
What's the example of places in New Vegas that doesn't have any purpose?
Exploration is consistently rewarded by giving you a new upgrade, some ammo, a save point, map hints, or boss fights when you check something new out. This is why people think Fallout 3's exploration 'feels' right. New Vegas on the other hand, is inconsistent. This feels less satisfying to players, regardless what they think is 'realistic'.
All places in New Vegas have at least one of those, + lore pieces that tells you a story within the context of the gameworld. Again, this is a game that's made by completely different developers with completely different design philosophy. And if anyone hasn't tell you this, those developers happened to be the ones who has some involvement with the games that predates Fallout 3.
)... but...but..
