Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. I'm one of those people who have no problem with using our imagination. It doesn't make the game any less interest, just because it's not Ultima VII in terms of how alive the world it. As far as reading is concerned, well, I very much enjoyed PS:T, so it isn't a problem. Plus, any game with a reference to the Silmarillion gets extra interest on my part.

Actually, New Vegas hasn't got much to do with Bethesda other than using the same engine as FO3. (And them being the publishers, of course.) The game was developed and written by Obsidian, and some of the developers worked on FO2 as well, and they were more familiar with the "classic Fallout experience" and lore. Therefore it is more comparable to the first two FO games.

I personally find Bethesda games rather dull, I think the experience is something like wandering around in a very nicely crafted world which is devoid of any real substance or life. However, I found New Vegas a very entertaining game, and the reason for that is probably because Obsidian took a "substance over style" approach and actually managed to fill their sandbox with things of interest. It is true that the game suffers because of the engine they've used and that the combat system is anything but refined, but that's what Obsidian had to work with, so it's not really their fault. Then again, with the right build the game can be finished with very little combat, so it didn't really bother me.

I wouldn't say that the plot was very complicated or very original, but it got the job done. (It actually was heavily influenced by the novel called 'The Postman' and had a bit of a follow-the-yellow-brick-road Wizard of Oz vibe to it as well) What made the game enjoyable for me was the meaningful C&C: different options based on your skills, new paths opening up or closing down based on your decisions, not to mention the more refined reputation system as opposed to the "good-evil" scale in most games.
I think rather than taking an "I'm going to be evil/good" attitude with your character it's better to equip him/her with a few basic values and help or hinder the different factions based on those. Then again being narcissistic and pissing off all the main factions probably has the most satisfying outcome of all.

Just note that I have never said 'As good as', just that it has reminded me of it in many parts. Then again, even in the world of actual literature, there's rarely anything as good as Silmarillion.

I always play chaotic good in RPGs and that was rewarding in New Vegas. However my second playthrough, where I roleplayed a bitter merc who does whatever Mr. House wants because Mr. House pays the bills, and who set the NCR and Legion against each other by playing them both for patsies. It was damn fun.

I'm so taking the Wild Wasteland perk this time.

Same experience here.

Then I try to mod the sh*t out them and find some unknown error and I can't make any progress.

my first char was a cowboy-ish,with high perception and luck.wore a sheriff duster,cowboy hat,biker's goggles and a nice repeater and a revolver

My favorite char was an evil melee specialist. It all went well...
...until The Legion guys informed me that women can't enter the arena because women are weak or something.
...and then the only ones left alive in the camp were my char and her bff Mr. Happy Chainsaw.

Oh man, I got New Vegas over Christmas (I think it was a Greenman Daily Deal) and I'm REALLY liking it. More than FO2. I didn't really like FO2.

- I like that you can use the junk items for crafting, and I like that crafting gets really important when you play on hardcore difficulty. ALWAYS bugged me in Morrowind how you could pick up every item in the game, but there was never any point in doing so.

- I like how, while the NPCs don't really have SCHEDULES per se, they do have more involved wander scripts so they're not like just standing around like in Morrowind.

- I like how NPCs talk about game events. I like how RADIO stations talk about game events.

Anyway, the thing with Morrowind -- and why I keep bringing it up -- is that I love the aesthetic/lore/atmosphere of the game. I love the story. But the game itself is really hard to like for a lot of reasons. Combat's part of it -- the combat isn't very good, there's a lot of combat even if it isn't the focus of the game, and it is fairly easy to die.

But the bigger problem is, as others have said, is that the world's static. Not just in terms of NPC's not doing a lot, but just a systematic staticness to it. The world doesn't react to your actions. The factions never seemed like they mattered much.

The lore's really great though. I'd love to see Morrowind get remade or something.

(Meanwhile, Amalur's a lot like Morrowind, except it plays better in every way, it's super detailed, and I love it -- except the writing's just kind of there and the setting's not that original. Oh well).

Kingdoms of Amalur? A lot like Morrowind? Seriously? Apart from being RPGs and KoA being kind of open world (altho not completely), where on earth are any similarities?

At any rate, Morrowind comes alive the moment you start paying attention. The world doesn't actually react to what you do, that much is true, but if you actually watch what you're doing and if you try to understand reasoning behind it, well... It sudennly gets much more interesting.

You can be a total bastard in New Vegas and still do whatever you want.

As long as you don't outright go on murdering sprees assaulting members of your favorite faction, they're cool with you, or fuck it, pick no one, be the most narcissistic prick ever, help someone until you've gotten what you want and then shoot them in the fucking face (or back of the head), the game will not punish you for this.

Any thoughts on the New Vegas DLC? Only consensus I'm getting is that Old World Blues was good, and Dead Money wasn't.

Old World Blues was a great DLC for its humor, interesting characters, and exploring Big Mt.

I also loved Dead Money for its story and gameplay and I'd say its severely underrated but most people don't like it because they think it's hard or don't like the change to a survival horror feel.

Honest Hearts is my least favorite because the story just feels too short and not that interesting, the characters also feel bland, though it does have good items if you care about that and Zion National Park looks amazing.

I haven't played enough of Lonesome Road to really judge it but in terms of exploring its fairly linear.

I'd recommnend buying OWB first but you should watch some gameplay videos to see how they actually play.

Dead Money is excellent. Very atmospheric, and the writing is fantastic. Sierra Madre is made up of enclosed spaces, but there's a fair bit to discover, and it's easy to get disorientated. You will need to scrounge a lot, since supplies are extremely limited, and the Cloud constantly depletes your health (and limits your vision). It also uses a non-caps economy, which makes things even more challenging, especially on hardcore (until the later part). The "companions" are really memorable. If you're into Fallout for the writing, this is a must-have.

Old World Blues is excellent, in a lulzy, Fallout 2 way. Again, it's great if dialogue is your thing. The level designs are pretty good too, though I personally don't like the layout of Big MT and the lobotomite spawns.

Honest Hearts is decent. Not bad as a hiking simulator, but nothing especially memorable. There's a fair bit of wasted potential. Personally I feel the team could have delved deeper into the interpersonal relationships and beliefs of the tribes (and their leaders).

Old World Blues and Honest Hearts are good for new areas to explore. OWB has great humor, lots of dialog.

Dead Money is a very linear survival horror style mini-campaign, very good if you want that in your Fallout, very bad if you do not.

I have not played the last one but I hear it is very linear and combat heavy.