Forum:Lack of Random Encounters in New Vegas

I have loved playing New Vegas, I've put in over 100 hours, played for all the endings, did all the side quests and loved dead money. I've basically been waiting for this game since van buren was first announced a decade ago and although i think it could have been better, i'm not disappointed.

Unlike a lot of people who enjoyed fallout 1 and 2 though I also really liked fallout 3. I thought that while the writing was weak, and the main storyline seemed like rehashed ideas, the sides quests had some really great gems. I just loved all the cool little towns and their quests anandale, those!, republic of dave, oasis, etc. there were just so many fun and interesting ideas. even goofy ideas like the vampire quest or the super hero battle was fun for me.

in the end i like new vegas better... but there were some things that i thought fallout 3 actually did better. one big thing i liked much better about fallout 3 was the random encounters. random encounters are not just a fallout tradition dating back to fallout 1, but and RPG tradition dating back to basically the first RPGs. fallout 3 proved that random encounters could work and be fun in fully 3D sandbox environment. why in the world did new vegas not bring them back?

does anyone have any idea? has anyone heard anything the developers have said?

Philly wasteland 17:35, February 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the problem with the random encounters is that the Mojave is too densely populated. Unlike FO3 you have almost no free space and in most cases the next map marker is just behind the next hill.
 * As far as I understand there are fixed spawning points for enemies in New Vegas and I think it would be kinda awkward to encounter a group of Viper Gunslingers with the next settlement or Ranger encampent just a few steps away.
 * But you are right as I miss the somewhat exciting random encounters, too. I loved to fast travel to the "random encounter locations" to see one of the unique encounters like Leo.. although the special encounters in FO1 and 2 were even better... just think of the whale or the time portal :D The only real encounter in FO:NV is Malcolm Holmes who tells you about the Star Bottle Caps, isn't he? xNOKIx 18:17, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Heres a wacky encounter for ya when i target someone in vats they go up in flames

OMG!!! I get that encounter ALL THEE TIME!!! O.o --T-51bBoSPaladin 05:38, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Thats no encounter, it's most likely some sort of glitch... xNOKIx 18:07, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there are a few encounters with a mild Win The Future sense of the old random encounters (the brahman attacking mole rats at the mole rat ranch and Brooks Tumbleweed come to mind) but they are not RANDOM and are weak. FONV misses the clean-off the monitor when you figure out what's going on wackiness of the previous titles in the series. It's tougher to make that sort of joke now that games aren't just played by geeks and nerds, humour like the old FO titles had requires a shared cultural backdrop to work against (the shuttle crash site makes little sense to people who haven't seen the original Star Trek for instance). max 75.67.224.12 19:39, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Honestly i didn't even think of the mole rat ranch or tumbleweed ranch encounters when i wrote this and i think this just demonstrates that they were weak like you said. But they also didn't even really have the spirit of a random encounter, they always occurred in the same place.

the only truly random encounter in the entire game seems to be malcolm holmes... and all three times i played new vegas i didn't even meet malcolm holmes!

I know the developers answered a ton of questions, has anyone asked why there are no random encounters? Philly wasteland 23:38, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

SergeantDornan: I too miss the Random Encounters of FO3. my only problem with them is that they seemed to mostly include the god damned giant radscorpions or those freaking Yau Gui's. And they always came in pairs, the scorpions. Guais would sometimes come in packs of 3 or 4!! But still, I did like the randomness of encountering enemies. They could still do it, despite the population of NV--just have them either solely appear in the outskirt areas, such as in mountain areas, or areas that don't have settlements nearby. OR, just include them anyway. Do you know how many times in FO3 I saw a frikkin Guai or Giant Radscorpion in the trading settlment just south of the Republic of Dave? (I forgot the name damn it!) I once saw two caravans get mauled to death by a guai because it randomly appeared at the entrance to town, LMFAO! So they could do that in Vegas as well--it would add realism, that's for sure. I mean, in the wasteland, settlements have to deal with these issues, so why not?

Plus, it would just be damned cool to have random encounters involving Cazadores, deathclaws, or those snake-headed bastards...I forgot their name too, damn it, LOL. Good times in FO3 with random encounters, I do miss them a LOT!

just proves FO3 was a better game! more interesting, more abundant enemies, just more fun. i remember when i was having a cig and not really paying attention to the game, a deathclaw just came out of nowhere and i blasted the fucker away! if i have a cig and dont pay attention to new vegas, i hear the same song again and again on the radio, its just tedious

SergeantDornan: Sorry, but I disagree that FO3 is better. I preffer New Vegas, but I DO think there is much room for improvement, just as I did with FO3. Someone at the gameFAQ forums had an excellent idea: take the best things about FO3 and FONV, put them into the same game, and WHAM--you have one kick as MFing Fallout game. I whole-heartedly agree with that statement. And bringing back Dogmeat of course, the bastards!

So random encounters are simply enemies that spawn every time you fast-travel? I've found a lot of this when fast-traveling to Jacobstown, Ranger Station Foxtrot, Ranger Station Charlie, etc. So how NV lacks random encounters? ;) Putting a enemy around a settlement is the most dumb and stupid thing I've ever seem, in FO3 you always have a lame deathclaw next to Megaton after you reach level 17 or something that was very annoying, since in FO3 you are very strong around this level and the deathclaw was more a waste of ammo than a challenge. Random encounters are things like Leo in FO3 and Malcolm Holmes in NV. And I don't know why we are calling them "random", since they occour in a specific time, condition and location. Not so random, hun? Now if we are talking about a special encounter, that could or not happen, that's a different story.

And let the discussion of who game is better for the specific thread in this very forum. Thanks. Brfritos 06:36, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

SergeantDornan: Noted Brfritos, sorry, lol! What I mean by random encounter is enemies spawning in random places at random times--you know, the thing that has been goin on in RPGs since the very first video games? Malcom Holmes is the closest thing to a random encounter NV has. It seems to me that all enemy locations are predetermined, so to avoid them is easy--just stay out of the area they are in. I liked the feeling of danger every time I decided to go for a trot on the highest difficulty setting, carrying only a hunting rifle, 10 mm pistol, a few stims, limmited supply of ammo, and 20ish caps. I tried to see how long I could survive doing that, and eventually build up my caps--it's a fun diversion. I can't really DO that in New Vegas, because enemies don't just randomly appear. The sence of danger is a bit lacking, compared to FO3, when you had no idea if over the very next hill lurked a deathclar or a couple of yau Guai. THAT is what I mean by random encounters, and what I suspect is meant by many of the others here. And the unique encounters too, of course...like the moron with the empty shotgun that tries to rob you, LOL.

I've found this type of thing in FO3 very annoying to be honest. And I like the game, let's get this straigh. But this so called "sense of danger" only lasts until you are weak, after a certain level this enemies are more an annoyance than a challenge. And let's not forget that FO3 is a different setting than NV, it makes certain sense all the bizarre and mutaded creeters in FO3, since the area is heavelly irradiated and is scarcelly populated by humans. In NV the setting is different, the area has much more settelments than in DC Wasteland, the NCR will call that behemoth NCR Rangers with Salvaged Power Armor for solving the problem, for example. One thing Chief Harlon is right about those guys is this, that armor can pack a lot of punishment! Without special ammo or weapons you are dead against a soldier equipped with Salvaged Power Armor. :D Brfritos 07:07, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

SergeantDornan: Yeah, those NCR troops are dangerous, but there is one even worse then them--veteran rangers! I wanted to repair my AMR rifle once, but didn't have the caps to pay for it, so I decided to try and kill one of them...I think in Forlorn Hope. BIG mistake--the bastard took me out in two or three shots with his AMR!

I understand that the DC wasts makes more sense for the enemies to pop out of nowhere, but at least have random enemy encounters in the less populated hill and mountain areas...I really enjoyed that aspect of FO3..but yeah, SOMETIMES it was annoying...it seemed I always either ran into a pack of Guai or a couple of giant radscorpions...the latter which really eats through your ammo!

Random encounters are NOT just enemies spawning at locations. Don't get me wrong I like those too, but i was actually mainly talking about the encounters that WERE NOT just enemies spawning. I'm talking about Leo, roaming canibals, hazing raiders, i'm talking about running into Amata being tortured, i'm talking about running into mel gibson while he demands you hand over your money while he points and unloaded shotgun at you.. and about a million other examples. Those are the random encounters from fallout 3 i miss the most.

New Vegas feels more "real" to me. The towns seem more densely populated and the people in them seem to have a purpose, they grow crops, or they salvage and they all trade to make a living. whereas in fallout 3, there are just towns like Big town in the middle of no where with no discernable source of natural materials or food or water sources. i mean honestly... how in the world does that town survive? There are also way more settlements in New Vegas it seems, but anyone who says that New Vegas is too densely populated for random encounters is crazy. there is plenty of desert and open space in new vegas. pleny of locations where while you may have a landmark there, there isn't a population nearby. i just honestly don't understand why you would take out what was one of the most awesome parts about fallout 3.

and please for the love of god, this doesn't have to be another fallout 3 vs new vegas thread. i mainly just wanted to know if anyone had any reason why the developers of new vegas didn't put random encounters into their game Philly wasteland 12:51, February 16, 2011 (UTC)